Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages (Unlicensed Residential Establishments)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to carry out the repeated recommendations of the Catering Wages Commission for the establishment of a wages board for the 100,000 employees in the unlicensed residential establishments.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there are approximately 100,000 workers engaged in the catering industry whose wages and conditions are not covered by the Catering Wages Act; and if he will introduce amending legislation and thus provide protection for these workers.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 13th November.

Mr. Gibson: Surely the Minister realises that that answer is completely unsatisfactory? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is the Minister aware that the Commission has expressed itself very strongly about the delay in setting up a wages board for unlicensed residential establishments and that it says in its Report for 1956 that it has repeatedly pressed for the fullest implementation of

the Catering Wages Act? It goes on to say that 100,000 workers are without the protection prescribed for them by the Act. Is it not time that the Ministry made up its mind that those important sections of the catering industry should have the protection that this House has afforded them?

Mr. Macleod: I wish it were as simple as that. I think everybody who has been Minister of Labour and has studied this problem has come to the conclusion that we cannot solve the problem of the small boarding house in a way appropriate to other sections of the industry.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister proposing to ignore entirely the provisions of the Act and the representations of the Commission? If so, why not abolish the Commission? What purpose does it serve if its representations are to be ignored? Why is the Minister so solicitous of the well-being of the employers in this branch of the industry and so indifferent to the well-being of the workers?

Mr. Macleod: It is a question of finding a practical method of carrying out the Act. So far as the future of the Catering Wages Commission is concerned, I have said in my reply that the problem can only be solved as part of a review of the whole problem of catering wages.

Coal Mines (Vacancies and Foreign Workers)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies for miners exist today.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 4,600.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Labour how many Hungarians and other foreigners are now working in the mines; and how many more are now available in this country or elsewhere.

Mr. Iain Macleod: 10,500 foreigners, of whom 498 are Hungarians, are working in coal mines. Five hundred more Hungarians are in training centres of the National Coal Board. I have no information about the availability of any other foreigners for coalmining.

Mr. Pentland: Would not the Minister agree that in modern times one of the greatest deterrents to recruiting for the


pits is the risk involved? Is it not true that, despite all the work that has been done by the National Coal Board, the number of men suffering from pneumoconiosis increases in our pits year by year? Would not the Minister further agree that, although the fatal accident figures for 1956 were the lowest on record—for which we are all very grateful—they still mean that for every working day more than one miner was killed last year? In addition, would not the Minister further agree that there were—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I will finish on this point—more than 220,000 men seriously injured in the pits, which meant in fact that for every two and a half—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is much too long for a supplementary question. The Question was about Hungarians.

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), but his remarks go a long way beyond the purely factual Question on the Paper.

Non-Ferrous Foundries (Report)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour when the draft regulations based on the White Paper Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Conditions in Non-ferrous Foundries will be circulated.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question on 30th October. I am not yet able to say when decisions are likely to be reached regarding draft regulations.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that this Committee was set up four years ago and that this is the third question of vital importance to foundry workers which has been raised with him in the last three weeks, the reply in each case being unsatisfactory? Is it surprising that foundry-men are asking why the Minister acts so slowly?

Mr. Carr: I am aware also that the Report contains no less than 86 recommendations. This involves a fair number of issues which must be resolved, and, even when the issues of substance are resolved, the actual drafting will be by

no means a simple matter. These Reports really cannot be rushed through too quickly, because many consultations have to take place.

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the persons at present unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme are suffering from tuberculosis; for what periods they have been unemployed; and what special measures are being taken to provide opportunities of work for such persons.

Mr. Carr: The number of persons suffering from tuberculosis who are registered as unemployed at the Newcastle-under-Lyme Employment Exchange is 10, of whom four have been out of work for six months or less and the rest for longer periods. During the past year officers of my Department and chest physicians have made special approaches to employers in the Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme areas, and nearly 200 tuberculous people either returned to their previous employers or were resettled in other jobs. There are three Remploy factories providing sheltered employment in North Staffordshire.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, while this is obviously a small number, the local representatives on the employment committee are very concerned about these cases and also about the fact that in the neighbouring Borough of Stoke-on-Trent there is quite a large number of cases, especially when those suffering from chest diseases are taken into account? Will he, therefore, give sympathetic attention to the possibilities of further opportunities of employment for these people?

Mr. Carr: I am aware of the concern, and also of some of the difficulties because of the lack of diversity of industry for them in the area. I hope, however, that the number I mentioned as having gone into work in this last year is a sign of our activities having some results.

Car Delivery Drivers, Coventry (Wages)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a strong possibility of a dispute between


the Transport and General Workers' Union and car delivery agents in the Coventry district; that this would disrupt production in Coventry's motor industry and prejudice the delivery of cars for the export market; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Transport and General Workers' Union has invited car delivery agents in Coventry to send representatives to a meeting on 3rd December to discuss proposals for an agreement on the wages and conditions of drivers. No report of an apprehended dispute has been made to my Department, and it would appear premature at this stage to contemplate such a possibility.

Miss Burton: I am aware of that information and am glad that it was sent to his Department, but does the Minister realise that there is very great dissatisfaction among the car delivery drivers in the Transport and General Workers' Union in Coventry, and is he further aware that the leaders of the union in Coventry are particularly anxious that there should be no strike action in this matter and it should be settled by discussion? Would he be prepared to use his offices to help to bring this about?

Mr. Macleod: We will watch what happens, of course, but I must say that I think it is too gloomy to contemplate losses of export orders as a result of a dispute which has not arisen following on a meeting which has not yet taken place. However, we will keep a watch on the position, with my local people.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons employed in the production of ordnance, armoured fighting vehicles and small arms; and the total number of employees in Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. Iain Macleod: At the end of September, 1957, there were about 65,000 persons employed by establishments producing ordnance, armoured fighting vehicles and small arms. There were 37,000 people employed in Royal Ordnance factories, some of whom are included in the figure of 65,000.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that the Government have stated that the Royal Ordnance factories are to be the

preferred source for conventional arms, though the figures he has given, which show a huge proportion taken by private industry, make nonsense of this assurance?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows that that question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.

Industrial Disputes (Arbitration)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Labour what consideration he has given to the desirability of legislation to consolidate the law relating to arbitration in industrial disputes.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The only general legislation on this subject consists of two short Acts; the Conciliation Act of 1896 and the Industrial Courts Act of 1919, and in addition there is the Industrial Disputes Order of 1951. The two Acts do not, in my opinion, require consolidation, and, as I have already informed the House, the future of the Industrial Disputes Order is being discussed with both sides of industry.

Mr. Iremonger: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the confusion which exists as to the precise procedure whereby arbitration can be called into play when a recommendation is made by a Whitley Council which requires approval or otherwise by a Minister?

Mr. Macleod: I should not have thought, after the discussions we have had, that that matter is in particular doubt, and I do not think that the point my hon. Friend has in mind would be helped by the consolidation of the legislation which already exists, consisting of two very short Acts which are quite convenient in that form.

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Labour what consideration he has given to the desirability of legislation to put upon arbitration tribunals a duty to have regard to the economic interests of the general public, in the light of the advice of the Council on Prices, Productivity, and Incomes, when making awards in industrial wage disputes.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should not want, in advance of the Council's report, to express a view on the best way of giving effect to any suggestions the Council may make.

Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the public interest is indeed a factor which should be borne in mind by arbitration tribunals and courts in making their awards?

Mr. Macleod: It has always been made clear by Chancellors of the Exchequer, including, of course, the present holder of that office, that they consider that those who arbitrate should have regard to a number of matters, of which the one my hon. Friend mentions is clearly one.

Mr. J. T. Price: With respect to what the Minister has just said, which we all understand, how can it be said that any judicial tribunal can function equitably if, in fact, the scales are loaded against it before it begins to examine the evidence? Can it be said in truth that a judicial tribunal should be given any kind of instruction or guidance from outside when it is sitting in the capacity of judge?

Mr. Macleod: There is no particular detailed instruction given, but it is clearly right that there are general considerations which should be borne in mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister referred to the fact that he was waiting for the Report of the Council. Is this Council being asked to consider the form and content of all arbitration proceedings? What relation has that to this new Council?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; no instructions have been given to the Council beyond the terms of reference with which the House is familiar.

Dame Irene Ward: As it is pertinent to the point, may I ask my right hon. Friend how the negotiation between employers and employed on the question of the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Order is getting on? It has been a long time.

Mr. Macleod: Yes, it has been a long time, and I am aware of my hon. Friend's particular interest in certain bodies which might be brought within the scope of a new Order. I hope that we can make our final proposals known to the country fairly soon.

Opera Companies

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be unemployed through the Arts Council having become unable to maintain in employment the personnel of opera companies for whom they are by virtue of capital investment responsible.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that I cannot make such an estimate.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when unemployment threatens Covent Garden, affecting a London opera company, the Treasury rushes in additional subsidies, but that when an opera company from the Provinces is threatened the Treasury digs in its toes? In order that there may be fairness and Treasury money may be allocated fairly, is it not time that a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the whole problem of the allocation of subsidies to the arts? Will my right hon. Friend, with his great knowledge, recommend this to the Treasury so that the interests of those who come under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend's Department may be looked after?

Mr. Macleod: I will not promise to recommend it, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what my hon. Friend has said. The question of the grant made by the Government to the Arts Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

West Fife

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the increasing anxiety in West Fife about future employment prospects consequent on the closure and impending closure of certain textile factories; and what steps he intends to take to allay such anxiety.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware that one textile factory has closed and that another is expected to close. The majority of the people who have left these two factories have found other work. My local officers will continue to do everything possible to submit those still unemployed to other vacancies.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the textile


industry running down, there is apprehension concerning a rubber company in the Dunfermline area, and that whilst it may be true that the younger people are finding little difficulty in obtaining alternative employment, it is becoming exceedingly difficult—and has, indeed, always been exceedingly difficult—for middle-aged and married women to get alternative work once these textile firms are closed down?

Mr. Macleod: I know about the textile position, but I did not know about the rubber company. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me look into that. It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that although there is a very small male unemployment figure in the area, the real difficulty is in the female unemployment. Knowing that, we will do what we can to help.

Swansea

Mr. P. Morris: asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women unemployed in the County Borough of Swansea on the latest available date, as compared with November, 1956.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The available figures relate to employment exchange areas. At 11th November, 1957, there were 3,297 registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in Swansea, compared with 1,134 at 12th November, 1956.

Mr. Morris: In view of the disturbing figures and the increasing anxiety in South Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman try to prevail upon his Ministerial colleagues, who recently met a deputation from South Wales, to implement their promise to provide alternative industries, especially of a light engineering character, as soon as possible?

Mr. Macleod: I understand the anxiety. I think that the deputation to which the hon. Member refers was a useful one, and we will follow it up as well as we can.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the figures he quoted are for 11th November, but that news comes to us every day of the closure of another old tinplate works, that these figures for Swansea—indeed, for the whole of West Wales—increase day by day and that there is growing anxiety there? Will the

right hon. Gentleman urge the President of the Board of Trade, in particular, and the Minister of Power to keep these facts in mind, because this is an area which is badly in need of other industries?

Mr. Macleod: I understand that. I know that my colleagues in the Government are very conscious of it, and I will bring to their notice what has been said in the House today.

Factories Act (Fines)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour how many cases have been brought to his attention in the last five years in which fines have been imposed under Section 133 of the Factories Act, 1937; in how many of these cases he has directed that the fine should he paid to the injured person, or to the dependants in fatal cases; and by what principles he is guided in deciding whether the fine should be so awarded.

Mr. Carr: From the beginning of 1953 to the present day, 31 cases have been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend for consideration of award of the fine imposed under Section 133. The whole or part of the fine has been awarded in 26 of these.
When deciding whether an award should be made, consideration is given to all the circumstances arising from the injury to the worker. Particular account is taken of ways in which the money awarded can be used for some definite purpose helpful to the injured person or his dependants, having regard to the other benefits and remedies available.

Blind Persons (Protection)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that concern has been occasioned to the members of the National Association of Workshops for the Blind by the activities of persons and firms who market domestic articles at excessive prices by falsely representing that the goods they sell are made by, or provide employment for, blind persons; and if, in order to protect the blind and prevent fraudulent trading on the sympathy of the general public, he will introduce a regulation requiring that firms claiming to promote the interests of the blind, who are not already registered as charities or under the National Assistance Act, shall be compelled so to register and


that authority shall be taken to grant or refuse registration.

Mr. Carr: I am aware of the concern which activities of the kind to which the hon. Member refers are arousing. Not only may these harm the interests of bona fide organisations and of the blind themselves, but I consider it most undesirable that by means of misleading representations public sympathy for the blind should be exploited. I am doubtful whether the method suggested by the hon. Member would be practicable, but I am considering the whole problem. Meanwhile, much can be done by suitable publicity. Moreover, arrangements have recently been made whereby my Department is consulted by the Board of Trade where a firm or company seeks the registration of a name which suggests the employment of disabled people, whether blind or sighted.

Mr. Collins: Whilst thanking the Minister for that very satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this scandalous practice is on the increase and is no longer confined merely to firms using registered titles such as "Blind employment" who masquerade as the real thing, but includes firms who trade on the natural sympathies of the public and charge, for example. 2s. 6d. for this piece of rag which is not worth 2d., simply because they print on the envelope "Packed by the blind"? In his efforts to find a way out of this trouble and to stop it, will the Minister invite the cooperation of Members on both sides who are concerned to protect the interests and ensure the proper employment of the blind?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly do all those things. I am well aware that the steps we have recently taken concerning the registration of companies' names do not meet the entire problem, although, I hope, they meet part of it. I am considering the remainder and I will certainly invite the co-operation of Members on all sides of the House and will welcome the chance of discussing the matter with them at any time.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a matter of urgency, because many fine organisations which are doing a great deal of good work will suffer if this threat overhangs them for a long time?

Mr. Carr: Yes. Part of the difficulty is that we want to stop the abuse without injuring people who are doing genuine work. I am considering the matter urgently.

Scientists and Engineers

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consult representatives of industry, the universities and the technical colleges in order to devise a procedure for the interviewing overseas of scientists and engineers who apply for positions in this country.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Arrangements for interviewing scientists and engineers overseas must, in general, be the responsibility of prospective employers, but I am considering what assistance my Ministry can give.

Mr. Albu: While the attractions of employment in North America are, I think, decreasing at the present time, does not the Minister think that this is a quite serious permanent problem to which the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy has drawn attention, and that it is not only a matter of interest to industry but that the universities and technical colleges are also concerned and some of these need to interview overseas as well?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I think that is true. It is a real problem. The Federation of British Industries, among others, is considering what it can do about it and is aware that my Ministry will be very happy to help, if we can.

Personnel Advisory Service

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to establish members of his Department's Personnel Advisory Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I cannot say whether or when any of these posts will be established.

Mr. Albu: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this department is doing an extremely valuable job, and has been doing it for many years? Does he not think the time has now come to make it a permanent part of his Department?

Mr. Macleod: I think there are arguments on both sides. Certainly there are for establishing these posts, but there is


something to be said for keeping a certain number of them temporary to enable contact to be swifter between my Department and industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Teachers

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered one of the principal recommendations of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland, namely, that teachers or student teachers should forthwith be indefinitely deferred from National Service; and if he will now announce his decision.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The views of the Advisory Council were among the matters taken into consideration before I announced changes in the arrangements for the deferment of teachers on 2nd July. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my statement.

Mr. Hannan: We are aware of the information to which the Minister refers, but the Council went further and asked that all teachers, including student teachers, should be exempt in view of the looming crisis in education in Scotland, which will mean a shortage of about 3,000 teachers by 1960. Will he reconsider this matter as one vital to the national interest?

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the point, but the distance we went on 2nd July in relation to first aid second class arts graduates was as far as we felt we could go at that time. I keep an open mind on the question, and I am always prepared to look at it.

Mr. Jennings: Would my right hon. Friend care to state what the position is with regard to teachers and teachers in training in England and Wales at the present time?

Mr. Macleod: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means by that wide question. If he means the number deferred under these proposals of mine in July, the answer is 229, including 31 in Scotland.

Dentists

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister of Labour on what basis the allocation is made between the three Services of dentists called up for National Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The requirements of the three Services are examined periodically by the Dental Manpower Committee which was appointed by the Government in consultation with the profession. Dentists, like doctors, are recruited direct for Commissioned Service as dental officers, so far as possible in the Service of their choice.

Mr. Stonehouse: What is the position if one of the allocations to one of the Services is not taken up? Further, in view of the great need in some areas for dentists to be available for civilian work, particularly in the school service, will he consider releasing more for civilian work?

Mr. Macleod: It is quite true that there is a shortage of dentists in civilian life, but the Army—indeed, all three Services, I think—have for some years been below their establishments in dental officers.

Conscientious Objectors

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take administrative steps to implement the recommendations of the Franks Report regarding conscientious objectors' tribunals in relation to the age limits for tribunal service, the desirability of informal settings for tribunal meetings, the limitation of the practice of oath-taking, and the distribution to local tribunals of decisions of appellate tribunals in test cases.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It has been my policy for some time to appoint younger members of conscientious objector tribunals, and this will be continued. I also propose to bring to the notice of the tribunals the recommendations of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries, including the recommendations referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Brockway: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to give particular attention to the last point in the Question, which is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman himself: that is, the proposal that in view of the contradictory decisions by tribunals, the appellate tribunals should distribute decisions in test cases?

Mr. Macleod: I agree with the hon. Member that that is, perhaps, the most important of the recommendations in the


Franks Report, and we will direct special attention to it. I should not, however, like anything I say to be taken as interfering with the entire independence of the tribunals in the way that they conduct their affairs.

Call-up

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the number of young men born between 1st July and 30th September, 1939, who cannot be yet informed whether or not they will be required to do National Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I estimate that the number is about 75,000.

Mr. Deedes: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, a very large number of these young men are now in the position of being offered or choosing future jobs and are, therefore, uncertain as to their future. Can he say how soon he will be able to give more definite information about what is required of them?

Mr. Macleod: I would hope that we would be able to do it as the White Paper prophesied: that is, we would make a further statement, although it may not be until early next year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the Government's intention to abolish National Service, if he will introduce early legislation to amend the National Service Acts so as to exempt from National Service men who are urgently required in industry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on Call-up of Men to the Forces 1957–60.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time he took powers to keep in industry people who are more essential in industry than in the Army? Does he not recollect the case I submitted to him, the case of Alexander Millar of Ayrshire, whose call-up put 25 looms out of operation? Does not call-up in such circumstances create unemployment and trade difficulties? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think he should take special powers to deal with cases of this kind?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think so. I think we must try to cover those special

cases through the arrangements to meet hardships and others for postponements. What the hon. Member is suggesting is a form of selective service, and the Government have decided against that.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (CONVENTION)

Mrs. Emmet: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the Government's intention to ratify the Convention on the Political Rights of Women during the sitting of the Assembly of the United Nations; and if he will give the reasons leading to their decision in this matter.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. Although Her Majesty's Government support the principles embodied in this Convention, they are not able to adhere to it. The main reason, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Lady on 25th March, is the absence of a Territorial Application Article.

Mrs. Emmet: I understand the difficulty is the position of women in some of our Colonial Territories. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to see how far that difficulty is as great as it was and consult the Colonial Secretary to see whether steps could be taken to bring those conditions into such a state that we can now sign the Convention?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am sure it is my right hon. Friend's intention to try to bring about that state of affairs. He has consulted the Colonial Territories concerned, but it would be quite wrong in present circumstances for the Government to undertake this obligation when the conditions in those Territories do not conform with this Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken this year to alter the conditions under which Her Majesty's Government will accept the rulings of the International Court at The Hague in disputes with other countries; when the decisions were made; and why Parliament was not consulted at the time they were made.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the House on 8th November during the course of the debate on the Address.

Mr. Dodds: Will not the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming than that? Is it not a fact that the decision was made in April and not disclosed until Parliament was in Recess? Is it not a fact that the alteration means that unless we are judges in our own cause we shall not play? Having struck a disastrous blow at the United Nations through the Suez adventure, is it not a serious matter that again we strike another blow at laws designed to keep the peace between nations? What do the Government want—international anarchy?

Mr. Lloyd: As to whether I have been forthcoming or not, I referred the hon. Member to the statement I made recently, which takes up more than three columns in HANSARD, and in which I set out the whole of the position. Our position is that we regard our obligations in this on a basis of reciprocity. I, for one, am not prepared to have matters of national security referred to this tribunal when fifty other countries are not bound by the Optional Clause at all. The whole purpose behind the International Court of Justice was that countries should go there on the basis of reciprocity.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As there was a great deal that was obscure in what the Foreign Secretary said on 8th November, and as there is widespread anxiety in the country about this matter, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider laying a White Paper explaining, first, what he meant by the Ponsonby Rule, and secondly, the reasons for his action on the Optional Clause? Will he recall that the Labour Government in 1929 laid such an explanatory memorandum when they signed the Optional Clause?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider an explanatory memorandum. In my speech on 8th November, I dealt with the matter in great detail. The right hon. Gentleman has referred again to the Ponsonby Rule. Since 8th November, I have gone further into that matter, and I am advised that the purpose of the Ponsonby Rule was to enable Parliament to discuss treaties requiring ratification

before ratification took place. That situation does not arise in this case.
As to the suggestion of the hon. Member that I was trying to conceal this, this decision was communicated to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for onward transmission to 82 countries members of the United Nations, and it was also sent to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary failed to supply a copy of what he had done to Members of this House or to the Press, and that no Government have treated the House of Commons in such a way for forty years?

Mr. Lloyd: If that is a supplementary question. I think it is perfectly ridiculous.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEETING)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the latest developments in the field of intercontinental and medium range ballistic missiles, he will lay before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in December plans to wind up the rival military alliances and replace them by an all-European treaty based on the Charter, within which Germany could be re-unified, armaments controlled and Anglo-American and Soviet forces withdrawn from the Continent.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: is it not a fact that the development of ballistic missiles by the Soviet Union has made the land forces and bomber bases of N.A.T.O. an out-of-date and useless anachronism? Is is not a further fact that the more we pile up nuclear weapons on both sides the greater is the danger of war? Would not a settlement on the lines proposed in the Question make us all safer? It is in substance that advocated by the Opposition and by responsible American opinion as expressed by such people as George F. Kennan and Walter Lippmann,


and as it is close enough to the proposals of the Soviet Union, would it not be worth while attempting to reach agreement by negotiation?

Mr. Lloyd: I disagree with almost everything the hon. Member has said. I think the way to preserve the peace is to maintain our alliances and not to wind them up. I think the way to achieve the reunification of Germany is to seek to keep the Soviet Union to their word given in the high-level talks in 1955. As for the question of armaments, I think we should press on with the proposals which were endorsed by 57 countries of the United Nations.

Mr. Bevan: Leaving aside for a moment the question of treaties and alliances, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the time has come for a new diplomatic initiative to be taken? Are we to drift along towards what may be irretrievable disaster? Is no new diplomatic initiative contemplated by the Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the question of the timing of any new initiative is one which must rest with the Government, and I should not have thought the present moment was one for putting forward the suggestion on the lines of the hon. Member, which is almost identical with the suggestion of the Soviet Union, and which do not think would lead to security or peace.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the time is not opportune for taking a diplomatic initiative? Are we now to wait until we have some new technical achievement to set against the Sputniks? Are we to go on having this ridiculous race, each trying to get his nose ahead of the other? At what point will it be timely to take a new diplomatic initiative?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has not followed my supplementary answer. I said I did not think it was time to take a diplomatic initiative on the lines suggested by the hon. Member because I did not think it would lead to peace. I think one of the essences of this matter is some agreement with regard to disarmament. We have put forward certain proposals for a partial agreement, which have been endorsed by 57 countries. I should have thought

that the Opposition would have at least given some support to that position, because I think if we can get a partial agreement on those lines we shall have done something to produce an atmosphere in which further negotiations may be appropriate.

Mr. Bevan: I apologise for following this up, but it is a very, very serious matter indeed. We on this side of the House have said on more than one occasion—in a recent debate we said it again—that in our opinion a political settlement should be pursued independently of discussions about disarmament. While I do not dissent from some of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, may I ask him why should we have to wait for agreement about disarmament before putting forward proposals about a political settlement, because it seems to us that both can be pursued separately, one from the other?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not contest that position. What I think does not help is this: immediately we have put forward a serious proposition and the Soviet says "No," at once pressure is put on us to put forward something new and to abandon the position we have taken up. As to the German question, I made a speech at the United Nations in which I set down certain conditions in which, we believe, there might be a settlement of the German question. Just because the Soviet Union says "No", I do not think it right or that it adds to security for us at once to abandon our position.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the announcements of the Polish. Czechoslovak and East German Governments that they will not introduce nuclear weapons into their forces or allow the stationing of nuclear bases on their territory, unless such weapons and bases were established in West Germany, he will propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in December that no nuclear bases should be stationed on German territory and the prohibition against German forces possessing nuclear weapons should be maintained.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The answer to the second part is that there is no such prohibition.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that Germany was admitted to N.A.T.O. on condition that she did not manufacture or possess nuclear weapons? Is it not further the fact that the Polish, Czechoslovak and East German Governments have offered not to have nuclear weapons on their territories if we refrain from introducing them into Germany? Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that we shall all be much worse off if there are more nuclear weapons closer to each other on both sides than if we follow the course suggested in the Question? Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that by this means he can ever accumulate enough military power in the West to induce the Soviet Union to accept the inclusion of Germany in N.A.T.O.? Does he not see that this is a hopeless policy and should be abandoned?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member has said. I still believe in the power of the deterrent. I think that the deterrent has prevented war in the last ten years, and the fact that it is a deterrent to both sides does not affect us, because we have no intention of committing an act of aggression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."] As to the question of its prohibition to German forces, the hon. Member introduced the word "manufacture" in his supplementary question, which is not, of course, in the original Question. I quite agree with the hon. Member that, under the Paris Agreements, Germany is forbidden to manufacture nuclear weapons. She is not forbidden to possess them in any circumstances. It is not forbidden for any countries of W.E.U. to possess them.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the United States Government for the inclusion on the agenda of the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference of proposals to establish a high degree of military unity under United States command, even without agreement on foreign policy; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will insist that commitments to go to war must be related to policies jointly controlled and consistent with the restrictions on the use of force imposed by the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 28th June, 1955. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member on 4th May. 1949.

Mr. Zilliacus: Without delving so far into the past, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give an assurance that we will not be committed by the United States to go to war, except in so far as we agree on foreign policy, because otherwise we shall be shot into a war without having any say in the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: The circumstances in which this country would go to war must be a matter of decision by Her Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (YEMEN CLAIM)

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the recent reaffirmation of Yemen's claim to sovereignty over Aden.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This matter was raised at the recent talks in London during the visit of His Royal Highness Prince Badr from 10th to 20th November. It was not possible to reconcile our points of view on this issue. Nevertheless, I believe that the friendly personal relations and good will which were established during the visit—to which His Royal Highness made an important personal contribution—may make it easier to discuss questions of mutual concern in the future.
It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to utilise any opportunity which offers to exchange views with the Government of His Majesty the imam and to reach agreements which will remove causes of friction. We sincerely desire friendly relations with the Yemen. I intend to continue to try to secure these objectives.

Major Wall: Whilst agreeing that we desire friendly relations with the Yemen, may I ask my right hon. and learned


Friend to make it quite clear that, although Her Majesty's Government would agree to discussing frontier rectifications, they cannot agree to any claim of foreign sovereignty over Aden?

Mr. Lloyd: That matter has been made absolutely clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RESOLUTION)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken regarding the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the regulation of the export of live horses and livestock for slaughter.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This Resolution is at present under consideration by the Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg. I would add that, so far as this country is concerned, legislation already exists to deal with this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (SEQUESTRATED BRITISH PROPERTY)

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to obtain compensation for British subjects whose property has been sequestrated by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As my hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 31st October. Her Majesty's Government are discussing in the Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome the desequestration of British property in Egypt and compensation where this is due. Those talks are still in progress.

Major Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the desequestration of a business where the goodwill has been lost is not of much value to the owner? Will he press for compensation rather than desequestration in these circumstances?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is precisely one of the matters that have been put to the Egyptian delegation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES BASES, UNITED KINGDOM (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement exists between this country and the United States of America regarding the launching of hydrogen bombs from United States air bases in British territory without prior consultation, in view of the fact that the United States air force keep aircraft armed with such bombs in the air throughout the 24 hours.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Arrangements for the use of the bases were confirmed in 1952 when the then Prime Minister visited Washington, and it was agreed that the use of the bases in an emergency would be a matter for the joint decision of the two Governments. Circumstances necessitating the delivery of nuclear weapons from the bases would clearly constitute such an emergency.

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but would there be time for consultation? Secondly, is it not a fact that though General Powers announced on 12th November that loaded nuclear planes had been in the air since 1st October, such planes, unknown to the British public, have been in the air for 22 months, as Roscoe Drummond showed in the New York Herald-Tribune on 26th January? Why was this terribly dangerous arrangement and this situation concealed from the British public?

Mr. Lloyd: As to the question of consultation, which is the phrase used in the Question, I repeat that it is not a question of consultation; it is a question of joint decision. Therefore, the bases could not be used in those circumstances unless Her Majesty's Government had decided that they should be used. As to the second part of the supplementary question, which I do not think arises strictly out of the Question, the hon. Member referred to a dangerous state of affairs, but I can assure the House that if an aeroplane carrying a nuclear weapon were to crash there would be no danger of a nuclear explosion.

Mr. Bevan: Do I understand that American planes which are on this patrol duty from British bases carry hydrogen nuclear bombs? Do they in this 24-hour patrol actually carry the bombs?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) was referring to a statement by some United States general. I should prefer to examine that statement myself to see its precise terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not disputing it for a moment. It may very well he so. I have not challenged the accuracy of it. The point I made is a reasonable one—because there may be some public apprehension from the safety point of view—that if there is an accident in these circumstances there is no danger of nuclear weapons exploding.

Mr. Bevan: I am asking a different question entirely. This is a very serious matter. I understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that the question as to whether hydrogen bombs would be used against an enemy would be a matter for joint decision between the United States Government and ourselves in respect of our bases. What I am asking now is whether, in fact, American planes which take off from British bases on patrol duty are armed with these bombs at the present time.

Mr. Lloyd: My right lion. Friend the Minister of Defence dealt with this matter. I should think that what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says is true—that these aeroplanes do carry them; but it is a matter for the United States Strategic Command.

Mr. Bevan: So we understand the situation to be this—that the planes set off from British bases with hydrogen bombs on board at the moment and whether the bomb is dropped from one of these planes is a matter for joint decision by the British and American Governments. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why it is necessary on patrol duties that these bombs should be on these planes?

Mr. Lloyd: I would have thought that if these aeroplanes were on patrol duty, which would denote a certain state of readiness, it was absolutely right that they should be fully armed.

Mr. Elliot: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if it would not be well, before right hon. Gentlemen put these questions, that they should acquaint themselves with the terms of the answer given by General Powers? As one who heard that answer, may I point out that

he said the main deterrent air fleets carrying these bombs were based in the United States and not in this country?

Mr. Bevan: In my supplementary questions I was not dealing with the original statement. I was attempting to elicit information from the Foreign Secretary. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, arising out of the last supplementary question, whether in fact these American planes on patrol duty from British bases have the hydrogen bomb on board?

Mr. Lloyd: I said I was prepared to assume that they had for the purpose of answering this Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. When I said I would like to examine what the American general had said, and to see his statement, there was a derisory chorus from the other side. I had not in mind exactly what the general said, but I say again that it would not seem to me in any way contrary to the spirit of our undertakings—I would not see any difference whether any American aeroplanes of the Strategic Air Command are flying from American or British bases in a state of readiness.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope we shall not debate every Question. It is very hard on hon. Members with later Questions on the Paper.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the plan laid down in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations in May, 1947, for the future Government of Palestine still represents the aims and policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution of 29th November, 1947, which was the substantive Resolution on the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine: The


United Kingdom abstained on this Resolution. Her Majesty's Government's aims and policy on the Palestine question have been frequently stated, most recently in my speech in this House on 8th November.

Mr. Peyton: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what Her Majesty's Government intend to do now? This problem has been going on for far too long. Would he not agree that, except upon some basis such as that contained in the 1947 Resolution of the United Nations, there is no hope of any measure of justice for the Arabs? Would he not also agree that, unless there is a solution soon, this problem which is now intractable will become far more serious and more grave, and that both justice and self-interest demand early action?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would not disagree with anything my hon. Friend has said. We have frequently stated—everybody in this House has stated—that this state of affairs has continued for far too long, and we have on numerous occasions done our very best to try to find a solution. I would also add that we think some consideration must be given to the November, 1947, Resolution when we are dealing with this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSSELS EXHIBITION

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the full scope of British science, technology, trade and industry is adequately shown at the Brussels Universal Exhibition to be held next year.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: British science and technology are being given considerable prominence in the British Government pavilion which is being organised by the Central Office of Information on the Foreign Office's behalf. Her Majesty's Government will also be contributing a number of exhibits to the International Palace of Science. British trade and industry is organising its own representation through the Federation of British Industries and will be displaying many of the latest technological developments.

Mr. Palmer: Whilst appreciating the considerable efforts being made by British manufacturers privately, is it not a fact that unless the resources of the State

are put behind the British part of the Exhibition, our representation will not be fair to the industrial resources of this country?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think there is any danger of that. Her Majesty's Government have contributed no less than £400,000 already to the British part of the Exhibition, and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it is worthy of industry in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND)

Mr. Moss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has sent to United Kingdom representatives in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the question of the special United Nations fund for economic development.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to reveal the instructions sent to United Kingdom delegations, but I can tell the hon. Member that our general attitude on this question remains unchanged.

Mr. Moss: Can the Minister give us some more information on this important matter? There is no need for secrecy. Can he say whether he will support the recent American proposal to expand the Technical Aid Programme up to 100 million dollars and include in it a special project fund? Is that regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute for S.U.N.F.E.D.?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It may become a substitute for S.U.N.F.E.D., but this proposal of the United States Government has only just been tabled in the committee and it is under discussion at the moment. Various amendments are already being put down to that resolution, and I do not think that at this stage I can tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government toward this topic.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Minister of State this question? Can we not say that we are supporting the American proposal and that we will treble our contribution to technical assistance as the Americans propose to do?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not at this stage.

Mr. Bevan: Why not? Why cannot we do so? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we cannot say so? We on this side of the House at least think it undesirable that we should not attempt now to match the initiative coming from other parts of the world about technical development, and why cannot we ourselves on this occasion say that we respond to the American initiative?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Frankly, I think this country does match the initiative coming from other parts of the world. It does on all those matters.

Mr. Bevan: From India, for example?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In many of these international organisations we pay our full share. In many we pay more than our full share. When we are given a new proposal it is only reasonable that we should be given some time to examine it—not very much time, but some—because we are now asked to commit Her Majesty's Government to large new expenditure and, as I said, we contribute very substantially to all these organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE (VERBATIM RECORDS)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to lay the verbatim records of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee before Parliament as a Command Paper.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Her Majesty's Government have decided not to print the verbatim records of the 1957 Session of the Sub-Committee, but a Command Paper containing the two Reports of the Sub-Committee and a summary of proceedings will be laid shortly. Eight sets of the verbatim records have been placed in the Library of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have also received a set for their own use.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Foreign Secretary this afternon has appealed for support for the Western Governments' proposals, is it not desirable that hon. Members and the Press should be able to understand the proposals, which they certainly cannot do unless the minutes are readily available?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that on this occasion the discussions went on for five and a half months. The printing of the verbatim record would cost something like £4,000. I think that those who have a detailed interest in this subject can be served by receiving copies of the verbatim record which is already printed by the United Nations. Incidentally, we pay our contribution to the printing of that verbatim record. In addition, as I have said, there are eight copies available in the Library, and we have a certain number of other copies which will be available to anyone who takes a particular interest in this subject.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not desirable that all hon. Members should be able to take a detailed interest, and is £4,000 really of significance in respect of disarmament when our armaments bill is £1,500 million a year?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: All hon. Members who take a detailed interest in this subject can have the verbatim records available to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE (COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far Great Britain's signing of the Paris Club Agreement with the Argentine Government is contingent on proper compensation being paid to the Primitiva Gas Company.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On 25th November, agreements for the consolidation of Argentina's debt to her major creditors (including the United Kingdom) and for the formal inauguration of the Argentine Multilateral Trade and Payments System were signed in Buenos Aires. On the same day a decree was published authorising the Argentine Government to give effect to the terms of the agreement reached with the Primitiva Gas Company. I am sure that the House will welcome the conclusion of these agreements, which should be to the advantage of all concerned, and also the fact that the Primitiva case has at last been settled.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position concerning the claim


before the Argentine courts for compensation for the British shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways; and whether he will assure the House that the settlement of the claims of the Primitiva shareholders and the signing of the Paris Club Agreement will in no way prejudice Her Majesty's Government's efforts to obtain compensation for the Anglo-Argentine Tramways shareholders.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The company's case is still being considered by the Argentine courts, and I understand that some progress has been made. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British shareholders in this company recently made an appeal for funds to fight the matter to a finish, and they have been so successful that they have now decided to continue? In view of that fact, and as my right hon. Friend has just said that the case is going well in the courts, can he assure us that, since the Primitiva case is out of the way, once the Anglo-Argentine Tramways case has gone through the courts and been settled the British Government will do everything in their power to help the shareholders in the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company and do all in their power to get the matter settled, if necessary, out of court?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I did not go so far as to say that the case was going well in the courts. I said it was making progress in the courts. My hon. Friend is right in saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot take any action until the matter comes out of the courts again. When that happens, we will most certainly do all we can to help.

BRITISH HONDURAS (DELEGATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BERESFORD CRADDOCK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the discussions with the delegation from British Honduras.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 83.
The delegation, which had come from British Honduras to discuss the Colony's financial needs and the question of future constitutional advance, had begun official discussions. Early in their visit the four unofficial delegates were invited to a luncheon by the Guatemalan Minister in London. A plan was then put forward which involved severing the connection of British Honduras with the British Crown and associating it in some form with the Guatemalan Republic. When, ten days later, I asked the delegation about this lunch, it emerged that Mr. Price was still considering this most improper offer and had not, so he told me, even then made up his mind.
In the course of my meetings with the delegation it also came out that in addition to this incident Mr. Price had been engaged in discussions on his own with the Guatemalan Minister in London. These private discussions he attempted to conceal not only from the Governor and myself, but also from at least two of his three unofficial colleagues. With such a lack of good faith on Mr. Price's part, I have felt it impossible to continue negotiations with him. I have told him so this morning. Though I would gladly have continued discussions with the rest of the delegation, I felt, and the Governor agreed, that the right thing was for the whole delegation to return to British Honduras and deal with the consequences of this breakdown in the negotiations.
I look forward to a resumption of the talks with a reconstituted delegation as soon as possible in an atmosphere of mutual trust in which the attitude of Her Majesty's Government will be unaffected by this unhappy episode.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and say that I find the information which he has given rather disturbing? May I ask him two short questions? First, can he say how many of the delegates took part, or was there only one who took part, in these private discussions? Secondly—I think he will agree that this is much more important—how does this affect the future financial position of British Honduras? I am led to believe that British Honduras is framing its Budget proposals. Can my right hon. Friend say whether he can reach a decision about this matter before those Budget proposals are finalised?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All the delegates lunched with the Guatemalan Minister, but this was not one of the private meetings to which I referred in my Answer.
I shall be agreeing a provisional figure to enable the administration of the Colony to continue for what I hope will be the short interval before a delegation can return to continue the talks with me.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am sure that we all deplore the conduct of Mr. Price. Has any protest been made to the Guatemalan Government about this intrigue? It is common knowledge to the House that the British Government have, over a number of years, pressed the Guatemalan Government to take their case to the International Court at The Hague if they feel that they have any claim to British Honduras, and this they have consistently refused to do.
May I ask what the Secretary of State means by "a reconstituted delegation," and whether he will, in any case, press on with the development needs of British Honduras and also assist the Colony on the financial side?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The attitude of the British Government has always been made clearly known to the Government of the Guatemalan Republic, but any detailed questions about the conduct of the Minister or anything else should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
With regard to what I meant by a "reconstituted delegation," that will have to be for the Governor and the Executive Council to discuss when the Governor returns home, as he will do tomorrow. With regard to the third part of the supplementary question, I am exceedingly anxious that we should be able to take practical steps still further to forward the economic development of a territory which, I recognise, needs it as much as anywhere else in the Commonwealth.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are not the members of the unofficial delegation elected members? Consequently, when the right hon.

Gentleman says that he will receive a "reconstituted delegation," does that mean that he will not receive Mr. Price again, as this is likely to lead to a good deal of controversy and perhaps a very serious situation in British Honduras?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot promise an absence of controversy, but I ant certain that I have taken the only proper line. Of the delegation, three members were elected members and one was a nominated member. As to who would constitute any future delegation, that must, as I have said, be left to the Governor and the Executive Council to decide.

Mr. Nicholson: I wish to address a question to the Foreign Secretary. Has he informed the Guatemalan Government that the Minister in London is no longer persona grata?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Disabled Persons (Welfare, Training and Employment)

Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to the need for greater facilities for the welfare, training and employment of disabled persons, and move a Resolution.

Tanganyika

Mr. Page: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to developments in Tanganyika, and move a Resolution.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. MacColl: I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, he will call attention to the effect of the proposed Free Trade Area in Europe, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short Bill puts a seal on the aspirations of the Manx people, which they have steadily and patiently pursued for many hundreds of years, to be given greater freedom to manage their own affairs and, in particular, to control their own revenues. It is a particular pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to be associated with the Bill, since his father was a Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man and he himself has very close and dear ties with the island. My right hon. Friend asked me to apologise to the House for not being here at the moment. He is away on official Home Office business, but certainly hopes to be present later in the debate.
Many centuries ago, the Isle of Man was colonised by Norse settlers. It was an independent kingdom and it was not until nearly the sixteenth century that the English were treated otherwise than as aliens in the island and until then, they had to pay a fee to settle there. In due course, it passed by conquest to the Scots and then to the English, and from the early fifteenth century the island was, as the House knows, ruled by the Earls of Derby, first as kings and later as lords of Man.
Even in those early days, Customs Duties played an important part in the affairs of the island. Increasing mischief was caused by the growth of smuggling between the island and the mainland—and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), with his territorial interest, appreciates that point. In 1765, the British Government bought out the Duke of Atholl, to whom the island had by then passed in inheritance, and, in effect, took over control of the insular government. From then on, the island's revenues accrued to the Exchequer and Britain assumed complete responsibility for the government of the island, which is exercised through the Lieutenant-Governor.
However, the islanders never accepted as final the loss of their former independence and the island's constitutional history ever since then has reflected their continuing efforts to regain it. One hundred years passed before the first major step in that direction was taken with the passage of the Isle of Man Customs, Harbours, and Public Purposes Act, 1866. In 1887, Tynwald was empowered to alter Customs Duties with temporary effect, subject to confirmation by Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Hon. Members will remember that the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1955, substituted confirmation by Order in Council.
Apart from that and other minor changes relating to Customs, the statutory framework established by the 1866 Act has remained unaltered to this day, but there is, however, quite a sharp difference between the theory and the practice of the relationship of the two governments. In theory, the sole executive authority in the Isle of Man is the Lieutenant-Governor. He is appointed by the Crown and the island's revenues are controlled by the Treasury. In practice, the present century has seen an increasing degree of power being placed in the hands of Tynwald.
The mere repeal of the Acts which I have mentioned, the 1866 Act and the 1887 Act, would have left many unresolved questions. Happily, those have been resolved in two agreements which have recently been laid before the House, agreements between Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreements and thus to give to the Isle of Man, in form as well as in substance, the control over their own affairs which the islanders have long sought and have for some time to a great extent enjoyed.
The first thing the Bill does is to repeal the Act of 1866 and, by doing that, remove the present Treasury control over the expenditure by the island of its Customs revenues, leaving it free to manage its own finances. Secondly, it hands over control of customs matters to Tynwald and, thirdly, by removing Treasury control and by the repeal of various other Statutes, which are set out in the Schedule, the Bill leaves the way clear for Tynwald itself to legislate on various matters, such as loans and


harbours. I understand that it is Tynwald's intention to enact as a complementary Measure a Finance Bill which is likely to come into operation at the same time as this Bill, and which will provide for the control of the island's finances in future.
The next thing the Bill does, by the repeal of the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1887, and the Act of 1955, is to leave the island Government free to fix its Customs Duties and tariffs and other similar charges on goods. I understand that a Bill will be introduced in Tynwald at an early date for that purpose. As hon. Members will recollect, in the agreements which were laid before Parliament, the island agreed to keep its main duties in line with those of the United Kingdom and not to introduce fresh differences in Its duties without first consulting the United Kingdom Government. The existing duties will remain in force until altered by Tynwald—I think that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has just asked to which Government I was referring; it was Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire): I was wondering whether the Isle of Man would be able to compete with other seaside resorts by having cheap whisky and cheap tobacco.

Mr. Simon: Increasing disparity in any duties or taxes will first have to be discussed with United Kingdom Government.
The present arrangements for the collection of Customs Duties in the island by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will also continue in operation undisturbed and, for the time being, at any rate, the present body of United Kingdom law relating to the machinery of Customs administration in the island will remain in force. That is Clause 1.
Clause 2 relates to what is known as the Common Purse arrangements. It has been the practice, blessed by a provision of the Customs (Isle of Man) Tariff Act, 1874, to allow duty-paid goods to move between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man without further payment of duty where the rates are equal. That practice was later extended to include Purchase Tax where Purchase Tax was equal in

the two places. To compensate the island for the loss of Customs revenue thus entailed, it became the practice to allocate to the Manx Exchequer the appropriate proportion of the total revenue from equal duties collected both here and in the island. The effect of Clause 2 is to provide specifically for the continuance of that long-standing practice.
Mention of the Common Purse leads me to the Isle of Man's annual contribution to the United Kingdom Exchequer, which nowadays bears a direct relation to the Common Purse receipts. Section 7 of the 1866 Act required £10,000 to be paid annually into the Exchequer out of he Isle of Man Customs Duties. As hon. Members will be aware, the Isle of Man supplemented that sum during the war by making other sums available to the Exchequer.
In 1950, Tynwald resolved to pay, instead of the original £10,000 a year, an annual contribution of 5 per cent. of the Common Purse receipts. In round figures, that is about £100,000 a year. That increased contribution could not legally be paid at the time until the enactment of Section 2 of the 1955 Act, which enabled the island to pay to the United Kingdom out of the Isle of Man customs revenue a sum greater than £10,000 a year. As I have said, it was based thereafter on 5 per cent., equal to about £100,000 a year and operated retrospectively to 1950.
The island's present contribution rests on Tynwald's decision to pay an annual 5 per cent. of the Common Purse receipts and not on any imperial legislation. The island has agreed to continue to make a contribution each year, and has made such provision in an Act of Tynwald. The agreement is the second of the two that was laid before the House.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do I understand that Tynwald have actually passed the legislation confirming that they will in future pay 5 per cent. of the Common Purse?

Mr. Simon: The position, as I understand, is that Tynwald have already, in 1950, under an Act of Tynwald, agreed to pay 5 per cent. I do not think that they have passed fresh legislation; nor should I have thought that it was necessary for them to do so—but perhaps the


right hon. Member will ask me that question again in his speech, and I will try to ascertain whether what I have told the House is correct.
It follows from what I have said that the provisiosn of the Imperial Acts of 1866 and 1955 are no longer necessary and are not being retained under the Bill. The Bill repeals a number of United Kingdom statutes relating to loans and to mines and quarries in the island. Future legislation in regard to those matters will be a matter for Tynwald. Certain minor provisions relating to loans are to be retained because they achieve objects which would be beyond the scope of insular legislation.
Harbours are also to become a subject for the legislative control of Tynwald, but since the insular legislation on this subject is not yet ready. Tynwald are empowered by the Bill to repeal, in due course, the existing United Kingdom legislation on harbours in the Isle of Man. Meanwhile, those remain in operation. The Bill also repeals the Isle of Man (Officers) Acts of 1876 and 1882, which are now obsolete.
The principle behind the Bill is that Her Majesty's Government believe that the time has come to give formal recognition to the desire of the people of the Isle of Man to achieve greater financial autonomy. The Bill will not mean the end of the close association between the United Kingdom and the island, or any substantial change in the present practice which I have described to the House. Co-operation between the two Governments on matters of common interest will continue. The introduction of the Bill has been warmly welcomed in the island, and two weeks ago Tynwald passed a resolution unanimously approving the proposals which are to be given effect to in the Bill if the House should pass it.
The reforms which in inaugurates are being implemented in an atmosphere of good will, and that provides the best insurance of a satisfactory future relationship between the United Kingdom and the island. I therefore commend the Bill to the House as a measure of reform which, I trust, will be as welcome to all those in the United Kingdom who have at heart the interests of the Isle of Man as it is welcome to the Government and people of the island.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Like the rest of the House, I was fascinated by the account which the Joint Under-Secretary gave of the history of this island. It is certainly a small place. I believe that its population is about 54,000, which is less than any county council area in England except for three or four—Rutland, City of London, the Soke of Peterborough and, perhaps, another.
The Bill grants to such a tiny population rather considerable powers, which no United Kingdom county council, whatever its size or population, has so far thought fit to ask for. Nevertheless, I will say, at the outset, that we shall not oppose the Bill, although I want to comment upon one or two things which the hon. and learned Member touched upon and put one or two questions about parts of the Bill which are not entirely clear to some hon. Members on this side.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, Tynwald is a very ancient assembly. I believe that that part of it called the House of Keys claims to be one of the oldest assemblies in the world. This House is a rather ancient assembly, too, and as the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, and if one or other of these assemblies is to have overriding authority, I should have thought that, certainly in matters of finance, it should be this Parliament. Nevertheless, as the Minister said, the Isle of Man has for many years had almost complete financial autonomy. By the Bill we shall pass to them the little authority and control remaining with us.
I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that up to now there has been ultimate Treasury control of the Isle of Man finances. This was news to me, however, because from about 1894 or 1898 to 1955, when the last of the Measures was before us, we have continuously, year after year, passed the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, which gave legislative sanction to such changes as Tynwald had made by resolution following the introduction of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I have always understood, though it may be that I am wrong—the hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt correct me if he speaks again—that notwithstanding the


fact that had we not passed this legislation, the Isle of Man would still have been its own judge of what Customs Duties it should levy. Not all of them, anyway, have always marched with those which the United Kingdom Parliament has laid down. One thing that has kept the island roughly in line with ourselves has been the knowledge that if there were a wide gap between the two sets of duties it might lead to a good deal of smuggling.
In addition to Customs Duties, the Isle of Man levies its own Income Tax and Surtax. Income Tax ranges from 2s. 3d. to 4s. 6d. in the £ and Surtax from 10d. on incomes of £2,000 and upwards to 7s. 6d. on those over £20,000. It is like the Channel Islands, where the higher rates of Income Tax and Surtax to which the United Kingdom taxpayer is now acclimatised do not apply. They are in a happy position in that they enjoy the protection which accrues to residents of the United Kingdom, besides many of the benefits, but do not have to bear the heavy burden residents in this country do.
I suppose that if a resident of some other country could be present in the Gallery this afternoon and realise just what we are doing he would be rather surprised that this Parliament should go to the trouble to which it is going on behalf of so small an island. All down the years—certainly for the last two or three centuries—in Act after Act we have had to take note of the fact that the Isle of Man was separately governed from this country, and we had to make provision to include it in, or exclude it from very many Bills which came before this House. Sometimes I have asked myself whether all this was really worth while, whether the benefits accruing to residents in the Isle of Man were worth all the trouble, difficulty and the work caused to the Parliamentary draftsmen.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some of the Acts of Parliament which are here being repealed. He mentioned the Customs, Harbours, and Public Purposes Act, 1866. That Act makes provision for payment to the Exchequer of £10,000 a year, and the Act of 1955, of course, raised this limit and altered the formula to enable the Isle of Man to remit 5 per cent. of the proceeds of the Common Purse Fund. If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, there is nothing in the Bill making it obligatory upon the island, to continue

to pay us the 5 per cent. I have not the slightest doubt that Tynwald will honour its bond, but so far as I can gather from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and from the Bill, there is nothing to ensure this in years to cone.
It strikes me as strange that, in a matter of this kind, the British Treasury should not have seen fit to have something definite on the Statute Book to regularise the position and make the position clear for all time. It might at some time lead to difficulties when the people who made the bargain with the Treasury are no longer there. There is something to be said, in our view, at any rate, for having it embodied in legislation so that for all time both the Isle of Man and this country shall know exactly where they are.
I assume that the Treasury has not discussed with representatives of the island what is to be done about the amount outstanding on their contribution towards the last war. As I think most hon. Gentlemen will remember, at the end of the 1914–18 war the Isle of Man made an outright gift, in, I think, two instalments, of about £750,000 in full settlement of its obligation towards the cost of that conflict. This worked out roughly at between £13 and £15 per head of the population. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what has happened about the cost of the last war? What have we received, if anything, from the Isle of Man? I believe that the Isle of Man lent us £1 million free of interest and afterwards made a free gift of half that sum.
If the population is what I think it is, that works out at about £10 per head, not a great sum when one remembers how badly bombed most towns in this country were and how much people here suffered in loss of life and in excessive taxation.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am following what my right hon. Friend says, and I agree to a large extent, but in trying to make a balanced judgment on the contribution made by the Isle of Man towards the cost of the last war it ought to be borne in mind that the small population of the island made a very great sacrifice in the Navy and Mercantile Marine, suffering grievous casualties quite out of proportion to the size and resources of the population.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree, of course, with what my hon. Friend has said and I am delighted that I have been able to give him the opportunity to say it.
I am not denying for one moment that the Isle of Man did great service during the war. But, fortunately for them, the people of the island were not placed in a position where they suffered much from bombing, if at all. In addition, owing to the financial structure in the Isle of Man, which, in many ways, is different from that which applies in this country, the people there have not, according to my information, had to find so much per head as the people of this country have in respect of the last war. I am not blaming them for that; things just happened in that way.
While we are dealing with this Bill, I should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us what has happened to the £500,000 which, so far as I know, is still outstanding.
Why is it that the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872–1891, are being repealed? Those Acts, particularly the original one, are extremely useful. There is no reference in the Bill itself to any suggestion that the Isle of Man intends to re-enact the Measures as part of its own law. Does this mean that there are not any mines of that kind in the Isle of Man? What is the reason for these Acts being included in the repeal? Their provisions are extremely important.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the provisions regulate the employment of women, children and adolescents in mines, the appointment of inspectors, the payment of wages in public houses, and they make rules governing ventilation and many other things. Unless it is quite obvious that such regulations are no longer applicable, I, for one, cannot understand why that legislation, as it applies to the Isle of Man, is being repealed.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about other legislation, also? What about our own welfare legislation? I gather that the island has passed almost identical statutes, and that our National Insurance schemes, including health insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowance schemes and, I suppose, old-age pensions, are all worked as a unified whole, the same rules, contributions and benefits applying there, as in

Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom.
Will that legislation continue? I understand that the Isle of Man has a Board of Social Services which controls these schemes. Will the United Kingdom Parliament have any control over them in the Isle of Man, or are they to be handed over to the Tynwald to do exactly as they wish? I have not the slightest doubt that they will continue this legislation, but are any safeguards being set up to prevent changes being made? The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom and we ought to know the position in order to protect people who might go to live there.
What sort of hospital accommodation is there there? I understand that when citizens of the United Kingdom go there they carry with them all the benefits that have accrued to them under the National Health Service. Are there regulations to ensure the same standards in both places? I have not the slightest doubt that such standards are in being in the island, but before we part with the Bill we ought to know what the position is.
What about post offices and telephones? Has the Isle of Man its own Acts of Parliament dealing with these services, or does the legislation, like liability for National Service, cover both the island and this country? I imagine that the legislation covers both. If that is so, perhaps we might have an assurance from the Minister and learn where the dividing line is.
We welcome the Bill. It is part of the way of life of this country to allow a small island of this kind to continue to enjoy its ancient liberties and in accord with the wishes and desires of the people of this country as it is of those who live there.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Mackie: As representing two counties which are now merged into one constituency on the mainland of Scotland and nearest to the Isle of Man, it gives me great pleasure to say something in support of the Bill.
I no longer have to declare a personal interest or any interest on behalf of my constituency in regard to what used to be called "the fair trade," which will be remembered by hon. Members who have read Sir Walter Scott's great romance "Guy Mannering" and the works of


S. R. Crockett as well. Smuggling between the Scottish mainland and the Isle of Man no longer exists. Many years have passed since there was any smuggling. Every day, from my home, when atmospheric conditions permit, I can see that island looking particularly beautiful, especially against the westering sun. Most hon. Members will realise that I have a sentimental interest in the Isle of Man, and, therefore, a great interest in any legislation which is presented in this House relating thereto.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that we were doing more for the Isle of Man in this small Bill than had ever been attempted for any English county. He said nothing to suggest that the Opposition was inimical to the principle underlying the Bill; quite the opposite. I am delighted to think that that is the case. The smallness of the island should not prevent anyone with the historical knowledge and keen intellectual ability of the right hon. Gentleman saying that the island has a very particular position inside the framework of the British Commonwealth and of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ede: Is the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Mackie: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) heard me say "British Commonwealth" and then "the United Kingdom." By using both those phrases I tried to ensure that I was right.

Mr. William Ross: In view of the hon. Gentleman's favourable comment on the Bill, may I ask whether he has inquired whether or not there is any local legislation in the Isle of Man inimical to Scotland?

Mr. Mackie: I am sure there is not, but I am very ready to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, so that we may have an opportunity of hearing him give us the benefit of his knowledge on this matter.
I was about to say that the Isle of Man is the seat of a bishopric. I mention that fact not because I have any great love for bishops, especially if there is any possibility of the extension of the episcopate to Scotland. I mention it as an historic fact and to show the very peculiar position that this island has for so long enjoyed. The Isle of Man has never had

Parliamentary representation at Westminster. That fact is worth bearing in mind, in view of the possibility that in two or three years—I hope it is not a probability—we may have to consider the question of having representatives here from another island. I say that only in passing.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley alluded to the antiquity of Tynwald and made comparisons between the age of this mother Parliament at Westminster and Tynwald. If I had looked up the facts in the Library I dare say I should have found that Tynwald was in existence even before Simon de Montfort called the Parliament on which this ancient assembly is still modelled.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State very rightly and properly alluded to the feelings of the proud little Manx people, with their long history. I am glad that the Bill will give effect to the desires which they have so long entertained and that it does nothing inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister who replies to the debate will clear away any doubt lingering in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends on that point.
It gives me very great pleasure to support this small Bill. I am delighted that it is not to receive any opposition on its Second Reading. I hope it will speedily pass through Committee, secure its Third Reading and be placed without delay on the Statute Book.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Glover: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two. Coming from the north-west of England, where the Isle of Man has a particularly warm place in our hearts, all I want to do is to say how warmly I welcome the Bill. During the summer, I had the privilege of going over Tynwald and the House of Keys and seeing something of the administration in the Isle of Man. I am perfectly certain that although there may be only 54,000 people in the island, many of our county councils might examine its administration and learn a lesson in efficiency.
The Isle of Man is an old and ancient kingdom with close connections with Lancashire, and, I might mention, with Argyll.

Mr. Mackie: The Atholl family, in Scotland.

Mr. Glover: Many people from the North-West, especially Lancashire and Cheshire, have started their married life in the Isle of Man. It is not an island in the Irish Sea divorced and remote from England and Scotland: it is part of our common heritage. It adds a great deal to the colour of our national life to have the slight anachronisms of different taxation and other structures in the Isle of Man and in the other islands around our coast such as Jersey and Guernsey. It all leads to a diversity in our life.
When one thinks of the ancient traditions and sees how well the islanders have managed their affairs, it is with the warmest wishes that I hope the House, as I know it will, will give the Bill a Second Reading and show the people in the Isle of Man the warm affection that we have in our hearts for them.

4.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I thought it might be convenient if I answered the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary was able to move the Second Reading of the Bill. He was doing so on my behalf as I, unfortunately, had a public engagement some distance from here in connection with my Home Office duties. I wish simply to intervene to support his words and to say what importance the Government attach to this stage in the constitutional development of the Isle of Man. Through many centuries, the islanders have looked forward to developments and following upon, notably, the Act of 1866, this Measure is an important one, although its scope is a good deal in the financial sphere.
The right hon. Member asked, in particular, what the island had contributed to us during the war, with a view, I think, to stressing the generosity of the islanders. I can give him the figures. En 1938 Tynwald voted £100,000 as a contribution to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of rearmament. Payment was spread over five years. Subsequently, the island made a number of other contributions to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of the war

and the total amount of all these contributions was no less than £1,850,000. That is the measure of our debt to the island and the gratitude that we owe to her.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It amounts to almost two-thirds of a year's revenue by Tynwald, which is really very good.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is spread over a period, but does amount to that sum.
The island almost made an interest-free loan of £500,000 to His Majesty's Government in 1944 and this loan is still outstanding. That is the information which I have been able to derive which. I think, illustrates the generosity of the islanders.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to his anxiety lest the mines and quarries legislation which is enshrined in Imperial Statutes should no longer apply to the Isle of Man and he drew attention to the unhappiness which might thereby ensue due to these powers and provisions not being available in the island. I would reassure him at once by saying that Tynwald have passed legislation on the same matters and that, therefore, his anxiety can be, I hope, allayed and he can rest in peace that these matters are dealt with by island legislation.
Towards the conclusion of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to doubt whether the social conditions in the island would be satisfactory in the absence, again, of Imperial legislation. The answer is that there is local provision for the social facilities in the island, as I know from my own experience. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that score may also be allayed in that the situation on the island is comparable to what we in our wisdom regard as suitable for the inhabitants of the mainland.
There are certain aspects of Imperial legislation connected with the Post Office, to which the right hon. Gentleman also made allusion, which remain in existence and there are certain provisions concerning, for example, civil aviation, which rather transcend the frontiers of the island and are, therefore, conceived on a broader canvas. The matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, however, are, I think, satisfactory from his point of view.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several points of detail which I do not wish to answer at great length. Concerning


Income Tax, he will find that the standard rate is 4s. 6d. in the £—Nirvana, but not quite as beautiful as the right hon. Gentleman painted. He said that there was Surtax in excess of £20,000 per annum. The answer is that Surtax is in excess of £5,000 per annum on the rates to which he drew attention. I am taking the right hon. Gentleman's own observations and relating my answers to them.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to his fear that Tynwald might alter its 5 per cent. contribution. He is, perhaps, underestimating what is affected by the Bill. It is, indeed, possible for that to happen, but we are relying on the flexibility which is available in the Bill not to inure to the disadvantage of the mainland but solely to the advantage of the island. We believe that if, in our relations with the island, we proceed in the atmosphere of good will in which the Bill has been conceived, it is better to leave the powers flexible than to make them as tight as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. His question was quite legitimate, but I am giving him the answer in the light of the drafting of the Bill.
I am very glad that before the debate concluded I have been able to make this shunt intervention on Second Reading to illustrate the importance which any Home Secretary would attach to the future of the island. The island is one which is geographically situated in an area which was vital to us in the last war, in the middle of the North-West Approaches. Its constitutional history is probably the oldest in this part of the Northern Hemisphere and the island is one in which the administrative Government per head of the population is, I think, cheaper and perhaps more efficient than in any other civilised country.
That in itself is something to which even our Administration here might turn with a look of admiration. This is a Bill about an island which is a favourite holiday haunt of many of our fellow countrymen and citizens. I trust, therefore, that the House will pass the Bill in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman and those on this side have already approached it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED)

4.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
Hon. Members are, I think, familiar with the procedure which has to be followed when we propose to improve National Assistance scales. My right hon. Friend told the House on 6th November that he had received proposals for increases from the Board and that he had accepted them and he then laid the necessary draft Regulations. It is those draft Regulations which we have now to consider. They have already been approved in another place and if they are now approved by this House the Minister will make substantive Regulations in the terms of the draft, and the National Assistance Board will then be able to proceed with the necessary action to give effect to them.
The effect of the new Regulations is to increase as from 27th January next the amounts allowed for requirements other than rent. The principal increases are to be 5s. for a single householder and 9s. for a married couple. These improvements will bring the rates on the ordinary scale to 45s. for a single householder and 76s. for a married couple, and the special scale rates will be 65s. and 96s. The special scale, I may add, although I think most hon. Members will know this, applies to families where either the husband or wife is blind and to those who are suffering from tuberculosis and who incur loss of income in order to undergo treatment. It means that the margin of 20s. for blind and certain tuberculous applicants is maintained.
To the sums provided—both scales, the ordinary and special scale—allowances for rent are, of course, added. On that, I should like to say a little more later. To both scales appropriate increases are being recommended for applicants in other categories and dependants, including dependent children.
In 1948, when National Assistance was first introduced in its present form, the rate for a single householder was 24s. and the amount now proposed will represent an increase of 87.5 per cent. on that figure. The rate for a married couple was originally 40s. and the amount now proposed represents an increase of 90 per cent. For children, the percentage increase over 1948 averages again 90 per cent. During this time, may I add for the benefit of hon. Members, the Index of Retail Prices has gone up by 52 per cent.
If we take the comparison from another date, in 1951, when there was a further increase, then for a single householder the present recommendations represent 50 per cent. increase; for a married couple, 52 per cent.; and for children, on average, 49 per cent. Since that date, the Index of Retail Prices has gone up by 281 per cent. In giving these figures I have not forgotten tobacco tokens, but even allowing for cases where tobacco tokens have been available to National Assistance recipients—and at its maximum where tobacco tokens were used by both partners of a married couple—the proposed rates still show a considerable increase both over 1948 and 1951.
In fact, only a minority of all National Assistance applicants qualified for tobacco tokens. As the House knows, people on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, or with no resources at all do not qualify for tokens. It may be useful if I point out that last year there were about I million retirement pensioners receiving supplementary assistance through the National Assistance Board. Of these, about four-fifths were women. It is not possible to say what proportion of people receiving National Assistance had tobacco tokens.
It was possible in last week's debate to state this proportion for National Insurance, and then we advised the House that the figure was about half. Supposing that the figures were the same for National Assistance recipients, it would mean about half a million retirement pensioners would be affected, but I think that the proportion is likely to be smaller because of the heavy preponderance of women, which is much greater than among retirement pensioners as a whole. These women belong very

largely to the higher age groups, in which case smoking would, I think, be fairly rare, because it was not a habit which they acquired in those days; in fact, it was one very much frowned upon.
Of about 800,000 women retirement pensioners on National Assistance, 130,000 are over the age of 80 and 380,000 are between the ages of 70 and 80. These figures are very interesting, and I hope that hon. Members will find them useful. I think that it is not unreasonable to suggest that less than half the number of pensioners on National Assistance will be affected by the withdrawal of the tobacco tokens. Indeed, taking assistance as a whole, it seems likely that at least two people out of every three will not be affected by the withdrawal of the tokens.
To return to the recommendations, I said that I would like to say a further word about rents. I feel that it cannot be emphasised too often that the National Assistance scale rates do not include rents. Rent is allowed as an addition, and it is my experience, which is, I am sure, also shared by other hon. Members, that this point is frequently overlooked and, therefore, leads to misunderstanding when people are talking about National Assistance scale rates.
Rent addition is covered by the principal Regulations, so there is no need for amending regulations to say anything about rents when scales for requirements other than rents are being considered in the way that we are doing today. My right hon. Friend explained in Answer to a Question in the House on 6th May this year that the Board has all the powers it needs to deal adequately with rent increases.
The Board's policy is to meet rent in full unless accommodation is shared by someone not on assistance and well able to pay a share of the rent, or the rent is excessive. For example, a married couple living alone and paying rent at 15s. a week would have as income as from 27th January next at least £4 11s. a week, that is, 76s. plus 15s., and it may be larger if they have special needs, because the increase in basic rates will not affect the discretionary powers of the Board's officers to adjust allowances to meet special circumstances.
This discretionary power is a most valuable and important feature of assistance, and is given according to individual


need. A great deal of use is made of the discretionary powers. An inquiry conducted by the Board towards the end of last year showed that two out of every five allowances then being paid contained additions for such things as extra nourishment, domestic help, and laundry charges. For retirement pensioners alone, the figure was even higher, nearly three out of every five.
There was a suggestion, when amending Regulations were being debated in the House in December, 1955, that the Board might be tightening up a bit in the use of its discretionary powers. I should like to anticipate any suggestion of that kind today by assuring the House that the reverse is the case. The figures show that these powers were used more freely in 1956 than ever before.
In 1955, allowances in payment contained about 642,000 discretionary additions, an average amount of 5s. 7d., involving expenditure of nearly £9,400,000 in that year. The corresponding figures for 1956, which is the latest available date, were 748,000 allowances, averaging 6s. each, and costing around £11,600,000 a year.
For example, of the total load in November, 1951, the proportion then receiving discretionary allowances was 34 per cent.; of the total load in December, 1955, on the figures which I have just given, the proportion receiving discretionary allowances was 40 per cent.; and of the total load in December, 1956, the proportion was 45 per cent. This will be confirmation, if there is any doubt, of the extent to which the Board uses these powers.
Paragraph 6 of the Board's Explanatory Memorandum on these draft Regulations refers to certain cases which cannot be dealt with on the basic rates now proposed. People living in accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, are given such allowance as enables them to pay the minimum charge prescribed by the Minister of Health—or, in Scotland, by the Secretary of State—and to keep a weekly sum similarly prescribed as being necessary for personal requirements. That sum, which is usually referred to as the "pocket money" allowance, is at present 7s. 6d., and I understand that the Health Ministers are proposing to introduce amending regulations to increase this.
In the case of people paying an inclusive sum for board and lodgings, the scale rate, which is for requirements other than rent, is not appropriate. The Board's officers, therefore, use their discretion to grant assistance at a rate which will leave a reasonable amount for other expenses I understand that, in practice, a grant made to meet board and lodging expenses, provided that it is not an extravagant charge, and to leave some extra for personal expenses, including clothing. This additional amount is now usually 12s. but, again, I understand that the Board proposes to increase it to 15s.
People in hospital are maintained free. They have no need for board and lodging allowance, but may need pocket money. The Board fixes that at 7s. 6d., but proposes that it should be increased to 10s. If a patient has outside commitments, as some may, either for keeping up the rent or helping dependents, it is reasonable that the Board should meet those expenses, and it does so.
This will be the sixth increase in National Assistance basic rates since they were first introduced in 1948. It will not only make good the loss caused by price changes since the last increase, but will also allow for the withdrawal of the tobacco token concession though, as I have said, that applies only to a minority of the people on assistance. Even for this minority, the increase proposed will provide an allowance which has an appreciably higher value, in real terms, than that provided by the 1948 rates. For all the others, the improved value must, of course, be correspondingly greater.
All this is evidence, if evidence were needed, of the way the Board discharges the duty put upon it, of the growth of its experience and of the great humanity that it has brought to its task, as, I think, all hon. Members will readily acknowledge.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has reminded the House that we are working to a time-table. As the House knows, we on this side certainly want that timetable to be adhered to. We are glad that on this occasion it is proposed that the changed Assistance allowances will become payable at the same time as the increased benefits which the House approved last week. Therefore, on this


side, we shall not do anything to delay the passing into law of the Regulations which the hon. Lady has just moved. We hope, however, that we can have, and that many hon. Members will join in, a discussion this afternoon about the welfare of the people with whom we are concerned.
We are discussing the welfare of 2¼ million of our fellow subjects. Indeed, although that is the estimate given by the National Assistance Board in its Report for the year 1956, I believe that the figure is now slightly higher. However, at least 2¼ million people—half the population of the administrative County of London, and perhaps twice the population of Birmingham—are today living, to some extent, on National Assistance.
That represents a problem deserving the most serious attention of Parliament and of the nation. The Press sometimes refers to some of our debates here as being dull, but those debates are not an occasion for any kind of Parliamentary entertainment, and this is surely an occasion when we might well ask the Press, and public opinion generally, to pay a little more attention to our proceedings than they sometimes do nowadays. As a legislative assembly we are here to do a serious job, and not to entertain Press sketch writers.
Today's discussion is particularly serious. We are here to ask whether we are completely satisfied with the provision the nation is making for one in 22 of the population. During 1956, the total expenditure on National Assistance was £120,780,000. The total number of allowances current at the end of 1956 was 1,656,000, and for the last month for which we have any figures it was 1,667,000. In the former figure there were included 329,000 children under 16 years of age. Those were the figures at the end of 1956, and, as I say, they are slightly larger today.
It is inevitable, I think, that in the course of our remarks I and other hon. Members will have to use a great many figures. Responsible legislators are bound to look at the overall dimensions of the problem; to refer to the numbers of people involved, to the purchasing power of pensions, and that kind of thing. These, I know, are not very fascinating expositions, but before going any further I do say that in the minds of all of us who

may have to quote figures this afternoon there remains the picture of the people involved.
We meet in our regular work as Members of Parliament the people who are involved in this consideration. We think of the old people who, as the years pass by, though their monetary income may be looked after by some reference to an index of prices, find difficulty in keeping going. Carpets wear out, furniture becomes dry and rickety with age, and old people find difficulty in replacing such items. On some reference to a price index their standard may be as it was years ago, but to those directly concerned it is not. Their position is difficult, and it is getting worse. The struggle to keep going becomes harder with the passage of the years.
We think of the sick; the wage earner who is taken ill and has to remain on sickness benefit for a long time and has to supplement that benefit with National Assistance. He is confronted by the same sort of problem—the difficulty of keeping his children in the state that he would like for them—because, through no fault of his own, he is sick.
We think of the deserted wives with children to look after; women whose husbands have disappeared and are not paying maintenance allowances. Those women have to go to the National Assistance Board, and it is a struggle for them to keep their children as they would like and to save them from injury resulting from the father's wrong. And there are the widows in somewhat similar circumstances.
I recall the despairing wife who saw me not very long ago whose husband had, for the third time, broken open the gas meter and taken the money. He had been sent to prison on this occasion for quite a long term. As a result, through no fault of her own, she was faced with a very considerable debt to pay to the Gas Board. She had to go to the National Assistance Board. The Board was unable to pay the debt for her, and she is thus faced with this terrible problem in her domestic life.
In talking figures, we have not forgotten the people behind them. The figures are only the summary of all the daily problems that we, as Members of Parliament, continually meet. From the case presented to us last week, we know


that it is expected that the State will make a saving of £8 million a year on National Assistance, due to the increases in insurance benefits that last week were authorised. That saving could come about in two ways: in part, by some people being eligible for smaller allowances than they had previously, and in part by a reduction in the numbers entitled to allowances.
I was sorry that the hon. Lady did not give any estimate—unless I misunderstood her—of the reduction expected in actual numbers of persons. Will the £8 million saving which we are promised arise in part from a reduction in actual numbers expected to resort to National Assistance? If so, how much? Perhaps the Minister, if he speaks, will try to answer that question. He cannot answer it with complete accuracy, but perhaps he can give us some idea of the expectation of the Board.
In December, 1956, there were 379,000 people drawing National Assistance of less than 10s. Assuming that all such persons were enabled to go off assistance—that would be a very big assumption indeed; it is the maximum assumption—the numbers still drawing assistance would be 1,288,000—say, 1,800,000, taking into account their dependants. If we take the lesser sum and assume that only those receiving 5s. or less from the Board will be able to go off assistance, then the number still on National Assistance would be 1,577,000, or in total more than 2 million people. Although there will be a saving and some people may in consequence of the recent increases in benefit no longer need to resort to assistance, the total numbers remaining on assistance will he very large indeed; in fact, too large.
I now turn to the tobacco concession about which a great deal was said last week and about which I spoke. I therefore do not want to take too long over this subject this afternoon. I would remind the House that the Minister last week justified the withdrawal of the tobacco token from retirement and old-age pensioners on the ground that as it was an anomalous institution it could be withdrawn only when the increase in pension was substantial. It was the unanimous opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House, as shown in the Division Lobby, that we did not think

the proposed increases in the benefit rates were substantial enough to justify the withdrawal of the tobacco token.
We all said that a 10s. increase in benefit is not substantial enough to justify the withdrawal of the token; and, if that is so, what about an increase in assistance of only 5s.? How can it be argued that that is a substantial enough increase to justify the withdrawal of the tobacco token? Or will the Minister rely on some other argument? The argument last week was that here is a substantial increase and this now justifies the withdrawal of a concession made in order to enable these people to have a slightly more comfortable life than otherwise.
What is the argument today? Will we be told that an increase in National Assistance scale rates of 5s. is substantial enough? It leaves, as the hon. Lady rightly said—she did not shirk it—the pensioner recipient of National Assistance at the bottom end of the scale with an increase of only 2s. 8d. I had a letter from a man and wife who are both smokers and where, in consequence, the increase in the joint assistance allowance will be only 4d. a week—a derisory amount.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that figure? The gross increase for a married couple is 9s. Nine shillings less 4s. 8d. does not leave 4d.

Mr. Marquand: I beg the Minister's pardon; it was a slip of the tongue and a silly thing to say. I made too hasty a calculation. I should have subtracted from nine shillings. The reduction, however, is larger for a married couple in proportion than for a single person.
Surely the proposed increase of 5s. and the increase of 9s. in the joint pension are not sufficiently substantial to warrant the concession withdrawal. Could not something be done about it? What has been done about it? The total number of retirement pensioners drawing assistance in September was 960,000. We were told that 53 per cent. of such pensioners are smokers and receive cheap tobacco. I should have thought that to say it was 50 per cent. for this group might be a fair estimate. The hon. Lady thinks that it must be less than that. Even if it is less than 50 per cent., there


must be not very far short of 400,000 people drawing National Assistance, who if they continue to smoke will receive an increase of only 2s. 8d. a week.
The Assistance Board in putting forward this proposal tell us that "they have taken into account"—those art the words they use in their Memorandum—this change. How have they taken it into account? Those who do not smoke will receive an increase of 5s. Those who continue to smoke will receive an increase of 2s. 8d. Frankly I do not understand the phrase "have taken into account".
What do they mean by saying they have taken it into account? It seems to be a question still without any satisfactory explanation, and I hope that the Minister will attempt to give, a rather better explanation than merely saying that it was "taken into account". Why was it right, then, to give to a certain group of people on National Assistance a much larger increase than that given to the other group? Is it felt that those in the other group are less in need, or is it hoped in this way to persuade them to change their habits and give up smoking?
What are the old people supposed to do who receive this increase of 2s. 8d. and who, in their declining years, find smoking a solace and comfort? One wonders whether some way could be found to give an extra monetary concession in lieu of the tobacco token to those who buy tobacco. I am in no position to know whether or not some adjustment might have been administratively practical. We should like to know whether any tempering of the wind to the shorn lamb was considered and, if so, why it was not adopted.
Passing from the tobacco concession, how are the new levels of assistance which we are asked to approve this afternoon calculated? We have not peen told this in the recent debates. No real explanation has been given. We have been told in effect, "Taking everything into consideration, we feel that the increases now proposed are about right." We have always had to accept the increases proposed. We are glad that an increase has been given; but even if we find the increase insufficient we cannot amend the proposals put before us. We have to accept them. It is an unsatisfactory position to be in.
We have been told in the past that the increases proposed are intended partly to compensate for past price increases which have taken place in the interval since the last increase was made, and partly to guard against possible price increases in the future. How are these two elements provided for here? The rise in the index of retail prices since January, 1956, has been 7 per cent. It so happens that the base figure of 100 is taken to apply to January, 1956, and there has been since January, 1956, a 7 per cent. rise. The index now stands at 107.
The increase in the scale rate proposed for non-smokers is 12½ per cent., but it is only 6·6 per cent. for the smoker: so that for the smoker, it seems to me—I am subject to correction; my calculation may be mistaken—that the increase in allowances proposed is less than the increase that has taken place meanwhile in the general level of prices since the last increase. The hon. Lady said she thought that the increase proposed even for the smoker would make good the rise in prices in the interval. I should like to have a further comment about that from the Minister, because what the hon. Lady says does not seem to me to be accurate.
Our arguments in all these matters are always vitiated by the lack of a proper criterion by which to measure whether the increases are accurate and whether they will really represent an adequate standard of living and a satisfactory rise in allowances when price increases have taken place. The arguments are unsatisfactory because we have no special index to which we can refer. We all know perfectly well that the general index of retail prices is based upon calculations which exclude altogether the expenditure of persons like retirement pensioners and those drawing National Assistance. They are left out of the calculation. The index is based upon a middle-range group of incomes and expenditure. There is no special index for the kind of commodities which these very poor people buy—or if there is an index we have never been permitted to see it.
At long last—indeed, at very long last—we have had what I have been pressing for for some time in Questions to the Minister of Labour. We have had the publication of the results of the household expenditure inquiry containing some information, I think rather scanty, about


the expenditure of what they call "pensioner households." These are not necessarily all pensioners, but they are persons whose incomes are so small as to resemble those of pensioners, and they must include very large numbers of pensioners.
In page 246 of this report of the household expenditure inquiry we get at last an official picture of how a person in this sort of income group spends his money. It would be impossible to quote all these figures and far too difficult for anyone to follow them, but I can refer to one column which gives the expenditure of one-person households in this very low income group. As it happens, the total expenditure of these households was found to be 55s. 11d., and the amount spent on housing was 10s. 7d. The difference between those figures is almost exactly the new figure of the Assistance scale rate for an adult person. So it must be a pretty fair picture of how a person going on to the new scale rate will be able to live, because if one excludes the rent which the Board pays in addition to the allowance, the amount left is almost exactly 45s. It shows that such a person, having only 45s. to spend on things other than rent, can afford only 21s. 10½d. for food.
In page 247 we find, if we make a calculation, that 25s. 3d. is what the person in the average household was spending on food. It is lower than the national average, which was even higher than 28s. in the national food survey. The average person in the country—at least, those in the middle-income group—require about 25s. for food. The one-person householder living on National Assistance scales at the new rate will find himself able to spend only 22s. at the outside on food—not because he needs less food than other people, for I am sure he does not, but because of the high cost of the other essentials which he has got to buy. He has to spend 7s. 81½d. on fuel, light and power. He has to spend 2s. 11½d. on clothing and footwear—a terribly small amount on clothing and footwear compared with the expenditure of the average middle-income group where the figure works out at something over 8s. on clothing and footwear.
The person on Assistance who has to eke these things out as well as he can in order to leave himself enough on which to live in the way of essential food has

to cut his expenditure to 2s. 11½d. We know from what we see ourselves that the old people make their clothing last very much longer than anyone would want to if he could help it. Therefore, from this table I conclude from these figures that the increases now proposed for the adult person from 40s. to 45s. are barely sufficient to maintain what I would regard as an inadequate subsistence level.
The increases must, therefore, by the same token, be much less than sufficient to maintain the person who has acquired the habit of smoking and cannot give it up. Those who are to receive only 2s. 8d. a week in increased purchasing power as a result of these allowances will be very badly off indeed. The total increase of 5s. can only just make good the increase in prices which has taken place, and the 400,000 or more who are to have half that increase, roughly speaking, are not getting enough.
Let me say something about other groups than these older people. I have often spoken during these debates on families and children in particular, and I am glad to see that some increases have been made here and that proportionately some of them are larger than the other increases. It is notable that the increases for the younger dependent children still do not bring the allowances up to a level sufficient to cover the full cost of food, clothing and other necessities which they need.
It will still be necessary for the parents of such children who have to resort to National Assistance to supplement their children's diet by school meals and from their own allowance. They will still find that children are the chief cause of poverty. I cannot help feeling that those parents who have to maintain four or five children will themselves, if they do their duty by their children, have to exist on a standard a good deal lower than that of some other people.
The examples which the National Assistance Board gives in paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum show, I know, incomes which at first sight appear quite substantial. It gives an example of a family with three children and shows that at present such a family would have an income of £6 8s. 6d. and that under the new increases it would have an income of £7 2s. 6d. a week.
It seems to be that from the examples which the Board gives it must be thinking very much along the lines to which I referred last week, that allowances of this kind should never, if possible, be allowed to go very much above basic rates of wages lest there be an incentive to the parent or the income owner not to go to work, but to try to remain in idleness and live on National Assistance.
As I said last week, far too much importance is attached to that argument. I referred to the sanctions which already exist in the rules governing the drawing of unemployment and sickness benefit to prevent anything of the kind happening, in addition to the sanctions which the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health can use to prevent people trying to live on the Welfare State, the National Assistance Board itself has power to ensure that people do not use these allowances for their own benefit and against the interest of their children.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) tried to persuade us during the course of the last debate on this subject that there were large numbers of people living in idleness in this way, who were drawing allowances and multiplying the number of their children all the time and living as parasites on the Welfare State. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of what is in page 13 of the National Assistance Board's Annual Report. It says:
A man in a position to maintain his wife and children who persistently refuses or neglects to do so lays himself open to prosecution under section 51 of the Act. During the year there were 350 prosecutions of this kind; the husband was convicted in all but two instances and in 223 cases was sent to prison.
The idea that in this country it is possible for people to live in idleness on the Welfare State, to take more than their fair share and to make their children suffer is a myth. The Board takes action in all these cases and the penalties imposed are quite severe, quite apart from the protective devices woven into the National Insurance scheme. Therefore, I do not think that there is any real danger at all in the total income of a large family in receipt of these allowances going above the lowest rates of wages.
There is no danger at all of abuse, and if we go on the wrong assumption

that we ought to keep down the total allowances paid to the level of the lowest wages paid in the country we run the far greater risk that children will not be properly cared for, not due to their parents' neglect, but through their inability to provide them with the necessities of life from the small incomes available to them. Even if it were not true that there were all these sanctions, it would still be wrong to penalise the many for the sake of the few or to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children. I welcome the increases, but I must make it clear that I am still not happy with the final result.
The Parliamentary Secretary reminded us quite correctly that, of course, the National Assistance Board pays the rent of persons who resort to it over and above the scale rate of allowances. I know that, but I want to know whether there is to be any change in the Board's policy in this respect. I hope there is not, but I am bound to ask the question. The hon. Lady said—and I wrote down the words to be sure that I made no mistake—
The Board's policy is to meet the rent in full.
Is that still its policy? Can we have an assurance that there will be no change?
The reason I ask this question is, of course, because we have read Circular No. 55/57 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 20th November this year, in paragraph 3 of which, in reference to housing accommodation for old people, it says:
Some old people may be affected by the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, and a number may have, within the next twelve months, to find accommodation better suited to their means.
That is a wonderful phrase. What it is really saying to the old people is, "Your landlord will increase your rent and if you do not pay you must get out."
If a person is drawing a National Assistance allowance and if the Board is now paying the rent, will it follow the policy laid down by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Will it say, "You had better find 'accommodation better suited to your means'"? Is the Board to ally itself with the landlord in pushing such an old person out of his house? I do not believe that the members of the Board would personally


ever want to do such a thing—I am making no accusations against them at all. This is the policy of the Government, and the circular merely puts into very carefully chosen words what we know to be the policy of the Government.
Have the Government indicated in any way—I hope they have not—that the Board should do this? I hope to have an assurance that this is not so. Will the Minister say whether it is still the Board's policy to "meet the rent in full"? This is a very important question, and I am sure that it will be treated as such. I hope that we shall be given a straight answer.
I have already spoken longer than I intended, but before I sit down I should like to ask what of the future of all this. What is to be the future of National Assistance to which we can look forward after these increases have come into operation and when we have had time to reconsider the whole problem of the welfare of the retirement pensioner which we discussed last week? Surely we want to see that people who resort to National Assistance are not merely sustained in the level of consumption which we all thought was all that the nation could afford in 1946.
We want to see that they are given not merely increases in allowances in accordance with the rise in prices which will keep them always at the same levels of purchasing power and consumption which were appropriate in 1946, but that they, along with the drawers of benefit, get a share of the increasing wealth of the community. We want to see that they shall be entitled, as time passes, to a rise in real standards as well as a rising standard in money terms. The scale rates from time to time must move more quickly than the level of prices.
We want also to see that the total numbers of persons drawing National Assistance are reduced. Particularly I want to see that happen so that the National Assistance Board can concentrate on the task, which I know it likes doing, of looking after welfare. As the right hon. Gentleman knows. I had the pleasure, as he did, of addressing the annual summer school of the National Assistance Board. That was a very great pleasure.
Having given them a talk about some of my ideas on welfare, I was much

impressed to see the great extent to which officers of the Board, at all sorts of levels and in different parts of the country, were doing their best to carry out a welfare policy and drawing the attention of the welfare committees of local authorities responsible in each district to cases where special help was needed, discussing with individuals problems and trying to help them to a solution of many of these human problems.
They do not regard their job merely as one of doling out pounds, shillings and pence. They cannot do this job as we want them to do it if the load is too heavy and the total mass of people resorting to the Board so numerous that the officers have no time, or insufficient time, left beyond that devoted to mere routine payment.
I hope that in future we can work out a means of ensuring that the total numbers needing to resort to National Assistance can be reduced. Too many persons entitled to National Assistance benefit are drawing assistance. There are plenty of others who are not entitled to National Insurance benefit but who are afflicted, and will be for some years, and who, therefore, have to go to the National Assistance Board. We must care for them through National Assistance as there is no other way of helping them. If we are to concentrate on the welfare of those people we have somehow to reduce the numbers of those entitled to benefit who are now obliged to seek assistance.
I think that the solution lies not in keeping the National Assistance rate intolerably low and well below the pension rate so that people cannot resort to National Assistance. The solution surely lies the other way. It lies in getting really satisfactory rates of benefit and pension under the insurance Acts so that people can draw what is necessary to obtain a really reasonable and decent standard of living without the need to go to National Assistance at all. It is along those ways we must look for a solution. A solution of the National Assistance and National Insurance benefit problems can be found by building now, on the foundations well laid in 1946, a better and more satisfactory system of insurance which will give people when they retire, or become sick, or unemployed, a really satisfactory subsistence standard of living.

5.24 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I wish to begin by paying tribute to the professional workers doing field work in National Assistance. I know that when I speak from experience of the capability, keenness, kindly sympathy and tradition of generous and sympathetic help which has been built up by the National Assistance department in my town, I am saying what is true of every corner of England. I am glad that in opening the debate the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to the mass of supplementary and extra help for exceptional circumstances in which every National Assistance officer has to use a tremendous amount of personal discretion and personal sympathy. I want to pay tribute to the way in which I have found them doing that.
If I begin with a small local grievance, I hope the House will forgive me, for it has wider implications. One of the anomalies that arose early this year was the position of men out of work for a few days before a strike takes place and who, under the twelve-day rule, are ineligible for unemployment pay, ineligible for National Assistance and ineligible for strike pay from their union. The local National Assistance officers and National Insurance officers in Southampton, dealing with 400 or 500 men, were generous and swift in action and did all that was necessary and the matter was sent to the centre, yet it was some five or six months before those workmen—out of work through no fault of their own before the strike had begun—got what they were entitled to receive. I do not blame the Minister. I found the Minister quite courteous in all the correspondence dealing with this matter, but there was something wrong and I hope he will see that it is put right in case there should he any application of the twelve-day rule in future.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Surely the Minister has some obligation because some of the men actually drew unemployment benefit and then had it stopped because of the strike?

Dr. King: This illustrates the complexity of the problem and the sense of injustice, felt by my fellow workers of Southampton. No one hates anything so much as injustice.
May I also say how I like the way National Assistance officers went out of their way to mitigate the evils of the Rent Act, before I put a question to the Minister on that matter? Hundreds and thousands of old folk made anxious and miserable by the acts of this Government, had their anxieties relieved by the swift behaviour of the local officers and by the action of the Minister himself at the Dispatch Box. When I raised this question with the Minister before he misunderstood me. I did not suggest that any old folk are suffering because landlords are doing illegal acts and charging illegal rents. I am asking whether the Minister and the National Assistance officers are prepared to meet increased rents not when rents are illegal, but when they are excessive.
If an old-age pensioner is living in a controlled house, the increase cannot be more than twice the gross rateable value, and in July the Minister said that he was prepared to meet that, but if the old-age pensioner is in a decontrolled house there is no limit to the rent which a landlord can charge. The Minister in July said that National Assistance would meet reasonable increases in rent. I hope that that means all increases. I hope we can have assurances this afternoon that the National Assistance Board is prepared to meet even the profiteering charges of the worse landlords in the country where old-age pensioners are living in decontrolled houses. I cannot imagine that there are many, but there may be some. Incidentally, I think it a bad thing that we should have to subsidise this greedy landlordism out of National Assistance.
I wish to raise the question of procedure. The House is inclined to take the Regulations we are now discussing as something decided for us by the National Assistance Board and to assume what we do is to say, "Yes," or "No". It is true that Ministers of both political parties have encouraged this passing of the responsibility to the Board. It is true that the Board was deliberately set up away from Parliament, and that no Member of Parliament can become a member of the Board. I would pay a tribute to the effectiveness of this method by saying that more adjustments have been made to the basic rates of benefit under this system than would perhaps have been made had we proceeded each time by


means of the ordinary method of legislation in this House.
Reference has been made to the fact that there have been six changes in the basic scale of National Assistance. I notice that hon. Members opposite and the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when making comparisons for political purposes about the treatment of old folk, always begin with 1948 for those arguments, when we broke the old Poor Law and set up National Assistance. They always begin with 1946 when referring to old-age pensioners and forget the fact that in 1946 and 1948 we made revolutionary changes both in National Assistance and in the basic pension scale. There have been six changes.
In 1948 the figure was 24s. to begin with; in 1950 it was 26s.; in 1951, 30s.; 1952, 35s.; 1955, 37s. 6d.; 1956, 40s., and now in 1957, it is 45s. All that was done by means of Regulations of the kind we are discussing now. It is a much swifter way of proceeding and a tremendous advantage of the machinery we have set up; but the power is always with Parliament. Obviously Parliament will not turn down the increase proposed in these Regulations. But under the current Act—Section 6 of Part II of the 1948 Act—the instructions to the Board are that it submits draft Regulations to the Minister and if he approves them, he submits them to Parliament,
either in the form of draft as submitted or with such variations and amendments as he thinks fit.
So that if the Board does not award enough to the poorest old-age pensioner, the Minister can say so; except that the Act lays down that if he alters the draft, for better or for worse, he must send it back to the Board to look at it again. Therefore, if my argument is right, it is the responsibility of the Minister that we are raising the rate of National Assistance by the 5s. and the 9s. as we are doing tonight.
The Minister could have made these more generous Regulations had he so chosen. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman would have done so, had the Treasury permitted it. If the hand is the hand of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, the voice is not even the voice of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I am not

right in what I have said so far, all that the Board is doing is an exercise in mathematics and statistics, and we sometimes question the validity both of mathematics and statistics. It is simply calculating the necessary amount to the nearest shilling to equate what we are now paying with what we paid in 1948, and then adding on a bit for increases in the cost of living which may occur a little later. If that is so, I think that when the party on this side of the House returns to power we shall have to alter the structure and terms of reference of the Board.
I have never been shaken in my view that we ought to have separate statistics accessible to Members of Parliament as well as to the Board to provide a special index of the cost of living of those people with whose welfare we are concerned under the terms of these Regulations. I understand that the Chairman of the Board has his own index but we have never been able to have one available to Members of Parliament so that we might debate and discuss it. The simple fact is that for the poor people of England the main expenditure is on food, heat and shelter. While National Assistance takes care of shelter completely, the costs of food and heat are rising out of all proportion to any other rises in the cost of living.
In our debates on National Assistance we have come to discuss the problem of the relative claims for stepping up the basic insurance pensions and supplementary pensions respectively. I suppose that theoretically my right hon. Friend was right when he said that the goal should be to have such a generous basic scale that nobody would need to be on National Assistance. But that can never be for a long time yet. I hope to show the House the kind of people who are on National Assistance, but, roughly speaking, it covers first many people who in the nature of things cannot qualify for the basic insurance benefit.
There are the chronic sick and unemployed and those with no means at all. There are the widows, still being treated unjustly by Ministers from both sides of the House. The fact that so many widows are on National Assistance is an indication that we are inadequately providing for the widows of the country. There is a whole group of people from the pre-insurance days who can never qualify for the full benefit of the basic scale of


National Insurance. More than that, we have never yet got the basic scale to anything like enough to maintain anyone solely dependent on it at a decent standard of living. I hope to show in a moment that many people on National Assistance are getting everything to which they are entitled from National Insurance, but because they have no other income than what they receive by way of National Insurance, they must be helped by National Assistance.
We are now discussing people who are at the rock-bottom. Many of the people getting a 10s. increase in pension have other means of income, and we discussed them last week. The people we are discussing now, many of whom are getting not 10s. but 5s.—the Minister said there were half-a-million of them—are the poorest in the country. To some of us this state of affairs seems utterly wrong. Some of us believe that to him that hath not shall be given and from him that hath, including the Surtax payer, shall be taken away the money to do it.
It is important, and I agree with the hon. Lady, that we should know just what National Assistance people are getting out of this. I read today in a north country newspaper, the Sunday Sun, a moving and human article on what the new benefits mean to old-age pensioners. The newspaper quoted the case of an 82-year old lady. The article stated:
She will put her extra 10s. a week towards building up a stock of coal to last the winter and to paying a rent increase of 3s. 4½d.
This statement is incorrect in two ways, as I hope to show. The two ways almost cancel out, but the old lady is worse off even than the writer of the article thinks. She will not get 10s. a week, for she is on National Assistance, and she will get an increase of only 5s. Fortunately, the rent increase has already been met, I am quite certain, by National Assistance, so that may be cancelled out. What she is really getting is an increase of 5s. plus coverage for the extra 3s. 4d. a week rent.
Her income is £2 basic pension plus £1 13s. 6d. National Assistance. Incidentally, that is a tribute to the little things which the National Assistance Board does to help, because she is receiving more than merely her rent. Her total income will rise from £3 13s. 6d. to £3 18s. 6d., plus another 7s. 6d. rent increase which she

has to face next April but which, I am happy to say, National Assistance will meet. All she is getting out of this increase, therefore, is 5s.
She has given her budget, and I would refer hon. Members to the Sunday Sun for them to see how poor old folk spend their money. She spends 12s. 9d. on food and 37s. 6d. on her month's coal. She buys five bags of coal a month, and old folk need warmth more than young folk do. The price of her coal is to rise by 3s. 9d. In giving her budget in the Sunday Sun, which is not exactly a Labour paper, she has worked out that she has only 3s. 9d., after she has met her essential requirements to meet the cost of coal, shoe repairs, warm clothing, sweets, entertainment and bus fares. The stark poverty of the poor was thus dramatically illustrated. Provided that this old lady does not smoke, she will receive 5s. a week more as a result of these Regulations, but if she smokes she will receive only 2s. 8d. out of them. This will hardly meet the increased cost of her coal.
I want to examine for a moment the kind of people who are getting National Assistance. In this respect I commend to the House the Report of the National Assistance Board for this year. Three-quarters of them are getting National Assistance because their National Insurance is inadequate. Thirty per cent. of them are getting it because they have been sick for a long time and because their sickness insurance benefit under National Insurance is not enough. Those sick folk will get an extra 5s. If they have children, they will get an extra 2s. for the first child and 1s. 6d. for each subsequent child.
A quarter of those on National Assistance are widows. The statistics given in the book show that, excluding the 10s. widow and the no-shilling widow, the widows who are worst off in the country, nearly a quarter of all widows are getting National Assistance because what we are giving them as of right under the National Insurance scheme is inadequate. I hope I am wrong when I say that this group of widows on National Assistance will get an increase of only 5s. In other words, I believe that the stepping up of the widow's basic insurance benefit will benefit them by only 5s. apart from children's increases as before mentioned.
A quarter of those on National Assistance are old folk on retirement, and I will say a word about them in a moment. One-fifth of those on National Assistance are unemployed. I want to follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend, particularly in view of references in an earlier debate to the alleged idleness of unemployed who receive National Assistance. Altogether, 55,000 unemployed are receiving National Assistance. The Report excludes those who are over 60 and those who have been unemployed for a short time and are likely to go back to work, perhaps, next week. We are left with 32,000 unemployed. Of those, two-fifths had been out of work for two years. Fourteen out of fifteen were unskilled. Of those 32,000, 25 per cent. were in poor physical health, 63 per cent. had some definite physical handicap and 24 per cent. were handicapped mentally. In all, 23,000 were handicapped physically or mentally, while many more were in poor health. The Report also points out that these figures for mentally handicapped are bound to be lower than the actual figures, as the officers could only judge very obvious cases.
Of these figures, 7 per cent., or 2,000 people in the whole country, were labelled work-shy, and of those 2,000, 670 were in poor health and almost an equal number were in bad mental health. We are therefore left with only a tiny fraction of people in this country taking National Assistance benefits because they are unwilling to work. I quote from the Report that
…wilful idleness as distinct from an understandable lack of keenness arising from physical or mental disability or other causes would seem to account for the lengthy unemployment in very few cases indeed.
I am grateful to the Report for the tribute to the honour and honesty of the British worker. I agree that we must punish the rare shirker who takes advantage of National Assistance, and I am interested in the reference to what has been done in that connection, and especially to the promising attempts at re-establishment of some of them. Nevertheless, on the whole, National Assistance is helping worthy and honourable but unfortunate people.
I have so far mentioned the main categories. Let me mention two others. We are helping 71,000 wives, 25,000 of them

with young children maintained by the State because the husbands and fathers refuse to keep them. We are doing that at a cost of £81 million. I do not grudge what we do out of National Assistance for the discarded wife and the neglected child, but I welcome the news that the Government propose to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) have tried to do by Private Bills—try to make some recalcitrant husbands of England live up to the marriage responsibilities which they undertake when they marry and breed children.
Another group consists of illegitimate children. I always feel inclined to protest against the expression "illegitimate children," because I do not think there is an illegitimate child in the world. The illegitimacy is nothing with which we can reproach the child. We are paying for some 22,000 illegitimate children under National Assistance, and I am happy about that expenditure of about £1¼ million because it is helping to keep the child in the home of the unmarried mother. Even from the lowest point of view, it is much cheaper for the State that a child should be cared for in its mother's own home. It is certainly infinitely better on all kinds of spiritual and other counts.
I welcome this debate as an opportunity of paying tribute to a great social work being steadily carried out by a great public institution—the National Assistance Board. My only regret tonight is one which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend: it is tragic to think that of the money which the Minister is giving to help the pensioners of the country, those who need it most will get least. I want to be fair; it is true that for a man, wife and three children the increase will be 14s. and not 9s. and for a man, wife and one child it will be 11s., but I doubt whether that increase would buy the fruit which such a family ought to have in one week.
We ought to remember, too, that the rent increases for these people are covered, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, but in my opinion the real and bitter hardship will be to the old married couple and to the single old ladies and gentlemen who smoke. These single people will receive 5s. but will lose their


tobacco token, which is worth 2s. 4d. No old persons ought to be asked or can be expected to deprive themselves of the luxury of smoking. Consequently, the old lady or gentleman who smokes will get 2s. 8d. out of these new provisions. If Darby and Joan both smoke, then instead of getting an increase of 9s. they will get 4s. 4d. I think it is wrong we should have put them in that position, and it is because of this treatment of the poorest old people that, while we shall support this Measure and not vote against it, we express our bitter regret that it is not more generous.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: I think it would be a pity if some observations were not made from this side of the House in view—if I may say so without unction—of the very interesting contributions which have been made. But I would make my little mild protest on this melancholy subject—and poverty is a melancholy thing. Dr. Johnson, I think, said poverty made some virtues impracticable and others impossible.
What interests me very much about this is that nobody ever thinks that, with our education and with our growing wealth, the majority of the people might somehow by their own earnings and their own skill save enough for their old age. Gone, apparently for ever, is the hope of the British workman, which his grandfather and great-grandfather had, of ever being in a position in our economic system to save for himself. It is a reflection upon us that we should be so defeatist that poverty is at our throat.
The other interesting thing is this balance between pension and National Assistance. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said, among many other things which touched me and with which I agreed, that the sad thing about this regulation of Assistance is that those who need it most get least.
It would be a good thing if we could get rid of National Assistance except for a small minimum and hand all a pension. For myself, I should prefer to see it provided by themselves. That provision is growing in industry. About £1 million a year now is paid out in insurances by private firms; some 8 million people are covered already by insurance schemes; and the numbers will go up, although

those schemes will never carry the whole of the population. I think that would be best.
The next best is that the State should devise a system by which people could themselves, by uniting together, have a pension which would take more people off National Assistance. But we must not be hypocrites about it, for if they do not earn and buy their pensions it is a face-saving device to talk about pensions as of right when they have not paid for them. It is an odd thing that although the pensioner does not mind saying, "Part of my pension I have earned, part is given to me", although it does not matter if it is given to him by a pensions board, it does matter if it is given to him by the National Assistance Board.
It seems to me that in our limited resources the first thing must come first, and it is National Assistance. I wish we could put up the old-age pensions to £5 a week. Everybody wants that. However, if I am to choose between giving to old-age pensioners, irrespective of means, and half of whom have other incomes, and to those on National Assistance, my mind supports the loading of the scale of National Assistance. That is what I should like to see.
I was delighted to hear the publicity given to the Report of the National Assistance Board for this year, and I certainly associate myself with the compliments paid to the officers of the Board. It is true that people who are now drawing National Assistance are, on the whole, doing so bona fide. There is no doubt about that. Let us not, however, be too sentimental about it. People waste their substance. They waste their health. They ignore their opportunities. Nearly every man who is old and poor has something on his conscience. We are a Christian nation and we must help them, but let us not go round making out that old age itself is a virtue. It is not necessarily a virtue. Therefore, while I would regard it as a duty to support people in need, whatever the circumstances which caused it, I do not think we ought to make it altogether a matter of merit. I have no strong objection, and no party objection, to anything which has been said, and I welcome very much these provisions which certainly will, to an extent, relieve poverty.
One final thought. Is it necessary every time we discuss Regulations of this sort to make those critical remarks about those who pay Surtax? Is it really thought that if we take from everybody earning over £2,000 a year every £ they receive in excess of £2,000 and spread it amongst the people it would add to the wealth of the old-age pensioners or of those drawing National Assistance? That distinguished Member of this House, Sir Stafford Cripps, worked out exactly how many shillings per head per working family per week it would come to. If I remember aright, it came to the big sum of 1s. I do not think it is necessary to overload our debates with that sort of argument.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) referred to one aspect of the National Assistance Board's work which, I admit, is very important, the care and protection of the old. But he made no reference at all to that other section of the community who, because of their disabilities, have to go to the National Assistance Board for the relief of their poverty. I am referring to the special cases of sickness about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) is an expert. No doubt, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will have something to say about them.
I was rather sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East said what I do not think is true, that the people of the last generation and of the one before that were more thrifty than this generation. They may have intended to be thrifty, but they certainly had not the means, and I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that those generations were more thrifty than people are today.
When I heard the Minister announce the proposed scales, and still more when I had had time to reflect upon them, I felt a very keen sense of disappointment, for the reason that the most favoured are not to get more than 5s. while those who indulge in what is described as the pleasurable habit of smoking will get only 2s. 8d. I ask the Minister, can he completely and sincerely justify the proposals which have been put forward at this moment by the National Assistance

Board? I had hoped that it would have taken a less niggardly approach to this very special problem than it has taken by putting forward these proposals.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said some very interesting things and gave some very interesting figures about rents. There is only one observation I would make about that now. Let us assume for a moment that under the operation of the Rent Act of this year the average increase in this item of household expenditure of those in receipt of National Assistance is to be not more than 5s. That is the same amount as the Board is giving to meet the remaining two-thirds of the household expenditure.
I want to make one or two observations about the question of discretion to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred and to ask the Minister whether he can give us a little more information than was offered to us by the hon. Lady on this matter, particularly as it affects the long-term sickness cases. I know of people who have been in receipt of public assistance continuously, either from the old board of guardians, from the public assistance committees of county councils and county boroughs and, finally, from the National Assistance Board. Throughout that period these people have been in receipt of assistance yet they are still not old people.
I have had a letter from a constituent with whom I have profound sympathy. He has been on sickness benefit since 1937. His case has fallen between two stools. He served in the First World War and he is of the opinion that his chest condition was caused by exposure to gas in that war. When, as a coalminer, he was turned down by the Ministry of Pensions, he applied to go before the pneumoconiosis medical panel. That panel agreed with the medical evidence of the Ministry of Pensions that he had a very bad chest and was suffering from a severe lung condition, but, whilst the Ministry of Pensions medical evidence was to the effect that his condition was not caused by gas, the pneumoconiosis medical panel said that he was suffering not from pneumoconiosis but from bronchitis.
All that he has been receiving since 1937 in respect of that chest condition is sickness benefit. In 1937 this was disablement pay of 10s. 6d. a week and he


received assistance from the public assistance committee. This case is typical of a large number, and I should like the Minister to consider the position of these recipients of National Assistance. They have been in receipt of £2 or £3 and now it is proposed that they should receive £3 16s. per week, plus an allowance for rent. Does any hon. Member think that people of that kind, after a long period on the standard of life that I have described, are in anything but a state of poverty today? Their furniture has become worn out and their household goods and utensils need replacement.
I appeal specially to the Minister that in cases of this kind he should suggest to the National Assistance Board that, without being asked by the individuals concerned, the Board's welfare officers should be sent round to investigate these cases and that these people who have never worked for 20 years and will never work again should be looked after. The nature of their illness is not immediately killing, but it certainly is very crippling. It means suffering and poverty to a degree that cannot be described. I know that the Minister is not inhumane and I hope that the words uttered in the debate will not fall on deaf ears.
In connection with the administration of the National Assistance Act, 1948, there is a point on disregards which I regard as very important in all the proposals to increase the benefit. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this benefit has been increased six times since 1948, and the National Assistance Act has been in operation for nearly seven years under the present Government. The hon. Lady spoke of comparisons between the rates now proposed and the rates in 1951. I do not know whether the present Government have any respect for the disregards which are statutorily provided for by the 1948 Act. I have failed to obtain any expression of opinion at all from them on the point. I have put Questions to the Minister but the answers have not been satisfactory from my point of view.
My case on the disregards is that if the value at which they were fixed in 1948 was right, then, with the change that has taken place since in money values, that unaltered rate of disregards cannot be right today. The people who are the beneficiaries under the disregards provision are, in the main, the people who

have been the most thrifty. They have paid for very small superannuation benefits. I am thinking, for instance, of the miners in Nottinghamshire where, in addition to the national pension, there is a local pension scheme which provides 15s. a week. Since 1948, 10s. 6d. of that pension has been disregarded. If that rate of disregard was right in 1948 it certainly is not right today.
The Minister will confer a real blessing upon the people who are in receipt of these small payments to supplement their existing low incomes if he will have another and favourable look at this matter. This is not the Board's responsibility. It is the Minister's responsibility, if he thinks fit, to alter this piece of legislation. I appeal to him to consider the matter.
There is no doubt that, if they have the opportunity, some of my hon. Friends will ventilate this grievance which has been so sorely felt in many parts of the country. I conclude, as I began, by expressing my keen disappointment at the miserable proposals which the National Assistance Board has put forward and which means not more than 5s. to the most favoured and can mean as little as 2s. 8d. to the least favoured.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: I shall touch only briefly on two points concerning extra scale benefits. I remember very well that when we were debating the 1948 Measure special consideration was given to the peculiar position of blind people. The blind had been taken out of public assistance and the difficulty was how to incorporate in the new Bill an allowance that would be distinctive and separate from the ordinary insurance or assistance.
At the time it was considered that 15s. would probably represent a fair average, taking into consideration the scale benefits for National Assistance and what was generally being given by the authorities then responsible for the maintenance of the blind. I am referring to the rates for a married couple. I shall not go through all the grades, because that would complicate what can be a clear and simple issue. It was decided at that time that the amount of 40s., which would be the scale rate for a man and wife, should be increased by 15s. for blind people.
There was a second problem, namely, how to deal with another and rather strange category. During the war Memorandum 266T gave a benefit of 27s. 6d. a week to tubercular people who suffered any loss of income by taking treatment. It was then considered that if the blind and the tubercular people in that class were assimilated, that was as near to a reasonable arrangement as could be made.
I will not say that these people are being very unfairly treated. Indeed, the organisations representing the blind—the National League of the Blind, the National Institute of the Blind, the Workshops for the Blind and other associations—at the time considered that a very fair arrangement had been made. I want to press the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor); it is not just money that matters, it is money's worth. Therefore, if 15s. worth was the right difference between the ordinary scale and the special scale in those days, then that proportion ought to continue until now.
That has not happened. It is true that the Board and the Minister have recognised that it would not be right to give exactly the same increase in every case, and so, in 1952, when the basic rate for a man and wife was 59s., the special scale rate was increased to 18s. I am not saying that was a correct proportion, but my point is that the principle has been conceded. The Ministry recognised that there was a right on the part of these special categories to have not just the same increase as others but a proportionate increase which would give them the same degree of exceptional benefit.
In 1955, when the basic rate was raised to 63s. for a man and wife, 1s. extra was given to these special classes, who then received 19s. extra. In 1956, when another increase was given, the basic rate was 67s. a week with 20s. for the special category. This time, however, there has been nothing more than the bare increase by which all recipients will benefit, and nothing extra for the blind and the tubercular.
I shall not attempt to cover the great variety of scales, because if I did so I should not then focus attention on two classes of people who, if anybody, want special treatment, particularly the blind.

I have always considered it was a good arrangement to take blind people out of public assistance. People who are unemployed, and who it is known will be unemployable throughout their lives, should not have to depend on Assistance. Public assistance should be transitory, and so it was right to take them out of public assistance and put them under the county and county borough councils.
I believe that a case has been made out for a proportionate increase in the case of the blind and the tubercular because they are a diminishing quantity. Since, fortunately, there are not many of them, it might be argued that this increase would not cost very much. At any rate a case has been made out for the blind, and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us why in this instance he has not copied what has been done previously and given them a proportionate increase.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I support my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members in their contention that the majority of the increases proposed in the National Assistance Regulations are not sufficient. We have been reminded that we are here dealing with a section of the community which is existing on the lowest possible standard of living. With rising prices the 9s. proposed in these Regulations for a married couple will still leave their situation very little different from what it is at present, because 76s. plus rent will hardly meet the bare necessities of life, to say nothing of those smaller items which can give some added comfort and some little pleasure to the older generation in the evening of their days. After all, life can be very grim without a little pleasure or a little comfort, and there is not a right hon. or hon. Member in this House tonight who can say that 76s. is adequate to meet the present situation of this section of the community.
My next point has been put already, but it would be interesting to know how the right hon. Gentleman arrived at these cold, naked figures. We should have knowledge of the basis of the increases suggested in the regulations. The Index of Retail Prices does not reflect properly the cost of living for those in receipt of National Insurance and National Assistance. We have already been reminded


by my right hon. Friend that in March, 1956, the Cost of Living Advisory Committee submitted recommendations which were adopted by the Government. It submitted a new index by means of which retail prices should be fixed. It went out of its way to point out that there were certain groups which should be excluded from its calculations in arriving at the new index. At the top level were households the head of which had a recorded gross income of £20 per week or more, and at the lower end households in which three-quarters of the total income was derived from National Insurance benefits, retirement pensions and similar pensions, and National Assistance. Having made an exhaustive investigation to arrive at the new index, the Committee felt that such sections of the community should be excluded from the calculations. The reason was that the expenditure of such households was considered not to be typical of the average pattern of expenditure for the country.
It is only recently that the Ministry of Labour has been able to publish in greater detail how the Committee arrived at its findings. It is evident from the figures which have been published that in the average household the amount spent on rent, fuel, light and food is about 48 per cent. of the total expenditure, but in the case of those on pension, National Insurance and National Assistance, where there is one person in the household, the figure is 72 per cent., and where there are two in the household it is 64 per cent., the average of these two being 68 per cent. Thus, the difference between the ordinary householder and someone on pension is 20 per cent.
I try to be practical in these matters, and I would urge upon the Minister the need to get a yardstick in order to assess the payment of National Assistance. Here we have something which could very well be adopted in present circumstances—a separate index for those on pension and National Insurance benefit. I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared, with the Minister of Labour, to go into the matter and give the House some information on these lines in the New Year. After a great deal of consideration, the Trades Union Congress has recommended that there should be a separate index for pensioners and those on National Insurance

benefit. Thus, the great trade union movement supports the proposal. In the circumstances, the case is unanswerable.
Apart from the figures, we know from experience that considerable hardship is suffered by pensioners and those on National Insurance benefit. Recently I met in my constituency a lady who was looking for wood so that she might be able to light a fire. She had no coal. She told me that she spent most of the daytime in winter in bed in order to keep warm. This is a terrible state of affairs. There are no doubt many people in similar circumstances.
I urge the Minister to inquire into the matter of coal for those who are in dire need. The National Assistance Board is doing a very good job, and in many cases its officers show the spirit which has dispelled a great deal of the criticism which was voiced in the old days. Nevertheless, I would impress upon the Minister the fact that for the old-age pensioner coal is dear, and I urge him to look at the problem and consult his officers about it.
Reference to disregards has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). The Regulations make no change in this respect. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, in the case of those in receipt of superannuation or pension any income above 10s. 6d. is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes. That figure was fixed in 1948 and has never been changed, although there have been six changes in National Assistance rates since then. The same thing applies to those in receipt of workmen's compensation and Industrial Injuries benefit. In that case the figure is £1, and it was fixed in 1948. There are miners who have paid into pension schemes. At one time the miners pension from that was 10s. a week. By arrangement, the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board have been able to pay pensioners in the mining industry £1 a week, but every penny above 10s. 6d. is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes. The effect is that much of those pensions goes to the National Assistance Board. The same thing applies to a number of industrial injured.
Pensions of this type are small, being only 10s. or 15s. a week. My hon. Friend referred to the Nottingham scheme which provides a pension of 15s. a week. I


repeat that the disregard figure was fixed in 1948 and has not since been changed although there have been changes in the earnings limit for retirement pensioners and increases in National Insurance benefits. In our recent debate I referred to the people who continue working after 65 and are able to earn a few shillings extra in pension increment. Yet that increment is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes at a time when we are trying to encourage people to continue at work to help our economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay special attention to disregards, especially in relation to pension and superannuation schemes, people receiving workmen's compensation, and those who continue to work after they are 65.
There are also those individuals who are in local authority accommodation. They gel a pension of £2 a week from which 32s. 6d. has to be paid to the local authority for maintenance. That leaves a balance of 7s. 6d., in addition to which they have had the advantage of the tobacco token, giving a total of 9s. 10d. That is the equivalent of about 24 per cent. of their pension. I understand that under the new Regulations they are likely, in many cases, to get 10s. pocket money. I should have thought that the same percentage of 24 or 25 would have been applied, giving 12s. 6d. instead of 10s. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider those cases where hardship will be caused. 
I have dealt with one or two aspects of the problem. Like other hon. Members, I look forward to the time when insurance benefits will be so raised that fewer people will require National Assistance. I hope that until that time comes, at least one result of this debate will be that we shall get a separate index of the cost of living for those receiving National Assistance and National Insurance.
The Government have every encouragement to do that. The trade union movement is behind them in this matter as are the Report of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee, hon. Members on this side of the House and, I believe, hon. Members opposite. If out of the debate comes an assurance that a separate index will be used as a basis for calculating National Assistance, then the debate will not have been without a beneficial result.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I want to make three brief references to matters already raised in the debate. I want first to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on the need for a special cost-of-living index for pensioners and others living on National Insurance benefits and within the scope of National Assistance. For a very long time there has been evidence that the pattern of spending of people in those categories is very different from the average pattern of spending throughout the country.
I realise, of course, that the objection can be raised that there are dozens or hundreds of different patterns of spending among different classes of people, but there is a special need for an index for these people so that we can get our facts right. We have no objective means of measuring whether the increases proposed in these Regulations will be adequate, nor of measuring what increases would be adequate, without some information about how the cost of living for the people concerned has altered since the last increases.
That means that the figures which the hon. Lady gave in opening the debate cannot be taken at their face value. She said that there had been proportionate increases in the rates of assistance since 1948 and since 1951 which outstripped the rise in the cost of living, but we have to have regard to the fact that the index applies to the country as a whole. Food obviously plays a bigger part in the spending of poorer people than it does among the population as a whole. We know that since 1951 the cost of food has increased more than the cost of goods in general.
There is the additional factor that throughout most of the period which the hon. Lady reviewed, rents were stabilised by rent control. Rent control is at an end and so its stabilising influence on the cost of living has ended. However, people receiving National Assistance have their rents paid for them and so that stabilising factor has been absent. For those reasons, and many others, the figures which the hon. Lady gave should not be taken at their face value.
I want briefly to refer to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. East (Mr. Philip Bell)—I am sorry that


he is no longer present. One must congratulate him on being the only speaker in the debate not to have come from this side of the House. It is a very sad reflection on the state of mind of the Government party. The House is discussing provisions to be made for the poorest and weakest members of the community. That is a subject which should arouse concern in all parts of the House, irrespective of party, and it is significant that the benches opposite have been practically empty for the whole of the debate and that only one Member has spoken from the Government side of the House.
The hon. and learned Member said that there had been a recent development of pessimism about poverty—I think that that is a fair interpretation of what he said. He argued that in the good old days people made provision for their own old age by saving and so on, and that now we are being pessimistic. He should consult his history books. Since 1601 there has been public provision for extremes of poverty caused by old age, sickness, or other things. Even before that, provision was made by monasteries and other bodies. It is not a new problem.
Our ideas and policies have changed, but the problem has been with us for centuries. I make that comment because the hon. Member's views are typical of the myth often spread by reactionary people, that, in some way or other, the development of the Welfare State has bean sapping our vitality.
I want to follow the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) who complimented the staff of the National Assistance Board on their welfare work. We have all met examples of officers of the Board who have gone far beyond their purely statutory duties and who have done a great deal, for example, in encouraging old people to take advantage of local welfare services, introducing them to Darby and Joan clubs and so on. However, most of us recognise that among some people, especially old people, there is still a reluctance to go to the National Assistance Board. I am sure that all of us in our constituencies have met that attitude and I hope that we all do what we can to combat it.
A further stage in the development of National Assistance should be the abolition of the National Assistance Board as such and the merging of its work into a wider Ministry of Social Welfare, so that the step from having a basic National Insurance benefit to having it supplemented by National Assistance would be taken in the same Department and in the same building and so that the people concerned would not feel that that step was as large as now appears to them to be the case. We should investigate that whole problem to see what other administrative measures can be taken to make it easier for those who need assistance to get it.
I share the disappointment expressed by many of my hon. Friends about the rates of assistance and the small increases which are to be given. That disappointment reflects the disappointment of many thousands who are affected. Let us remember that not everyone is well informed on the details of this legislation and that many pensioners will have read in the Press that they are to get an increase in pension of 10s. for single people and 15s. for married couples. They will have a shock when they find that if they are drawing a supplement to their retirement pension, they will have only 5s. or 9s., and that if they are smokers it will be only 2s. 8d. or 6s. 8d., as the case may be.
If I had to give a figure, I should have liked to see the Government proposing increases in National Assistance rates similar to those which have been approved for National Insurance rates, in other words, 10s. for a single person and at least 13s. for a married couple. In suggesting that, I point out that since January, 1956, the basic National Assistance rate for a single person has been the same as the National Insurance rate, 40s., and 2s. higher for a married couple, 67s. as against 65s.
From next January it will be 5s. less for a single person and 4s. less for a married couple, so that many people who are getting these small supplementary pensions at the moment will lose the right to them. These fluctuations have occurred before. If we look at the figures in respect of National Assistance grants we see that there was a drop in the number of grants paid in April and May,


1955, after the last rise in National Insurance rates and that then, month by month, the figures crept up again until they reached their present level.
When changes of this sort take place people who have hitherto been able to get supplementary pensions find that they can no longer get them, but later they may again qualify. This movement in and out of the National Insurance field causes much confusion and resentment, and it is not much use for members of the Government to put forward sophisticated arguments illustrating the way in which one benefit is worked out against another. People will say, "The Government have given me something with one hand and they are going to take it away with the other."
This will be a specially difficult problem next year. Some people will come out of the Assistance range in January but will qualify for it again in April and in the months following, when the large increases under the Rent Act come into effect. I hope that some of the people whose cases are on the borderline and who lose their right to Assistance in January will realise that if their rent goes up later they will again qualify, and that the Board's officers will do what they can to explain the position to the people concerned.
There is a case for saying that so long as our basic rates of National Insurance pensions are so low, and so long as we do not have a national superannuation scheme which gives proper provision for old age, National Assistance rates should at least equal the basic National Insurance rates, so that people will at least have that to draw, plus the amount of their rent. We should see that people do not fall below that level of subsistence. If that principle could be recognised it would be a step towards further improvements in the standard of living of the people of whom we are talking tonight.
As other speakers have said, those drawing National Assistance are not the workshy and shiftless people which reactionary elements sometimes pretend they are. The House has been reminded that the Board has ample powers to take steps against those who fail to maintain themselves and their dependants. For people who are able to work the payment of National Assistance is made contingent on their registering for work and is paid

through the employment exchange. In the main we are talking of people who are in real need, and who are in that position through no fault of their own.
We know that the largest group are those who are drawing National Insurance benefits but cannot live on them. Discussion has largely centred on those people, and I have concentrated on their needs myself. But there are other groups who do not qualify for any benefits under National Insurance, and even when we have a national superannuation scheme—as I believe we shall—and improve the National Insurance scheme, some people will still slip through the net who will need the special kind of assistance which can be given only if it is based upon some sort of means test administered by the National Assistance Board or through some other arrangement.
There are many wives who are separated from their husbands, and who have young children to bring up; there are unmarried mothers, and many other categories of people who, although they are in need, would not qualify for National Insurance benefit, but would need assistance given by the Board. We are dealing with people who have plenty or problems to worry about apart from having an impossible job to make ends meet. In the years that lie ahead one of our priorities should be to make more adequate provision for people in these categories.
I realise that I am speaking with the glorious irresponsibility of a back bencher, who does not have to think in terms of the cost, but I suggest that if, in the years ahead, our national product goes up and we become a more prosperous community, we should aim at giving these people a larger share of the cake. Not long ago a member of the Government spoke of doubling our standard of living in twenty-five years. I am sufficient of an optimist to believe that that is possible, but I would add that in order to achieve that situation we need a change both of policy and of Government, and I am optimistic about that as well. I believe that we shall have a change of both.
If we double our standard of living, or increase it materially, the extra wealth that we produce as a community ought not to go only to the owners of capital and to the workers in work; it should


go to the whole community. We are here discussing about 2¼ million people—the poorest and the weakest members of our community—and one of the tests of our civilised standards in the years ahead will be our solution of the question whether we can make better provision for them.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I should like to endorse the remarks which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. North (Mr. Prentice) has made. Like him. I only wish that the Ministers responsible for the introduction of this legislation could understand some of the difficulties, anxieties and distress of those living on National Assistance. My hon. Friend referred to the Lord Privy Seal's optimism in saying that the standard of living could be doubled in twenty-five years. If hon. Members were in receipt of twice the income of the people affected by the legislation that we are passing tonight, I wonder how any of them would begin to try to spend it so that he lived decently and comfortably. If we doubled it we should be giving to the married couple £7 12s. I wonder whether hon. Members can visualise what their lives would be like if they suddenly had to try to meet all the commitments involved in keeping a house open with a meagre income of that kind.
I was in a home a month ago, talking to a couple who were in receipt of National Assistance, when the light bulb fused. They did not have another bulb in the house and they had not the money to get one. I went out in my car and brought two. Little things like that amount to economic crises for these people. An electric light bulb may go; a bowl may be broken or a pair of shoes may require mending—such things are perpetually happening, and for the people with whom we are concerned it is a struggle every day, week in and week out, for fifty-two weeks a year.
I have never been able to understand why, whenever we are trying to do something for people in this category, we count every penny—measure it to the last farthing—as though it were gold that we were paying out instead of coppers. And it is coppers in this case, the married couple who do not smoke receive 9s. extra a week. With all the increases that there have been in the cost of living

in the last two years, the increase is 9s. a week. By the time these scales become operative it will be two years since those in receipt of National Assistance obtained any improvement in their scales. In two years there has been an increase of 9s. to cover all the rises in the cost of living which these people have had to meet just as much as everybody else in regard to coal, electricity, food, clothes—and one could go through the whole gamut of commodities.
Speaking at a meeting on Saturday I asked if anybody could tell me anything that had gone down since the Tories had been in office. One member of the audience said, "Two things have gone down—the value of the and the stock of the Tories in the country." Those are the only two things that have gone down. Everything else has gone up, and yet these people are to have only 9s. more to meet all those additional expenses.
In view of the perpetual rises in the cost of living, I want to ask the Minister why he thinks that those who are at the bottom of the ladder should receive the least. If we examine the increases in retirement pensions for married couples we find that they have benefited by 15s. over a period of more than two years, whereas the married couple in receipt of National Assistance have benefited by only 14s. In other words, they are, relatively speaking, a shilling worse off.
I cannot understand the kind of mind that believes that those without resources should not be equally as well treated as those with resources. It means, for example, that a retired civil servant with a pension of £1,500 a year will receive the full increase. But a miner who has worked during the lean and bitter years, with no opportunity to make provision for his old age; who is dependent solely on the minimum pension rights and has to seek National Assistance, will get only 5s. I think that a disgrace to a nation which is willing to spend so much in other directions.
I agree that many people are reluctant to go to the National Assistance Board. Many people still think it is like the old Poor Law. But I always advise my constituents that there is a difference between the two. In the old days there was a means test to see how much could be taken from a person. But the inquiry


under the National Assistance machinery is to see how much can be given; and there is a vast difference between being questioned to see how much one may receive and being questioned to see how much should be taken away.
A further problem I would like to raise relates to men and women who ate victims of industry, those receiving industrial Injuries pensions. They are no longer able to follow their own normal employment and may have been told to seek lighter work. But many are of an age when employers are not prepared to employ them and they cannot find alternative work. When their unemployment benefit is exhausted they are compelled to go to the National Assistance Board where they find that only £l of what they are receiving by way of pension is disregarded for the purposes of National Assistance. These people, who may have been injured in the service of the nation, eventually find themselves among the poorest of the poor. I hope: that the Minister will advise the Board to disregard a larger amount of what they are receiving in the way of hardship allowance or pension. If the right hon. Gentleman does not deal with this matter, sooner or later there will be a big outcry, and some Government will have to resolve the difficulty.
Like other hon. Members, I wish to pay tribute to the officers of the Board as distinct from the members. Miserable and mean though the scales may be, I know from experience that the officers who have the job of administering the Regulations do so with a sympathy and wisdom which one sometimes feels is lacking among those responsible for framing the Regulations. The officers do what they can, but they are limited in their endeavours by what is done in the House. I think it disturbing that today, when this country is supposed to be doing so well, and after five years of Tory Government and the promise that our finances would be restored and we should become great once again, we are prepared to devote to the poorest and weakest section of the community only the miserable amounts denoted by these scales.
Some day poverty will not be a disgrace. Some day the poor will not be despised. Some day we shall realise that they are human beings with stomachs

which need filling and bodies that require clothing and that they need accommodation which it is not beneath human dignity to occupy. I do not think that day will come under the present Administration, but I believe that it will be a little nearer after the next General Election.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish to pay a tribute to the officials of the National Assistance Board in the Edinburgh area. I have found them most helpful, but they are bound by the decisions of this House and the instructions of the Board. I do not think that anyone examining what we are doing tonight can be very proud. We are, of course, pleased at being asked to increase these scales, but nobody would suggest that the increases are so magnificent as to cause us any pride. On the contrary, I consider that they are a cause for anxiety and for a little heart searching.
Why is it that a vast number of people dependent on National Assistance have to live in the circumstances in which they now find themselves? During the debate on the National Insurance Bill I expressed my feelings forcibly on this subject. I referred to a report of the needs of the aged in Edinburgh, an excellent and highly technical report, not given to exaggeration, prepared by members of the Public Health Department in Edinburgh and the Department of Public Health and Social Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
Some of the needs and the services required by these old people are interesting and give us cause for thought. Of 17,000 needs of the aged in Edinburgh, 3,000 are for meals on wheels. The Report states that there are 3,000 people in Edinburgh requiring meals on wheels. These are the elderly people, many being in receipt of public assistance. This does not express the total need and the Report says that there is evidence that the elderly are under-nourished. This is not a propagandist publication. It refers to the Report of Hobson and Pemberton in 1955. It says:
As we did not ask for data on under-nourishment, we cannot be sure of having all those who were under-nourished included in the recommendation.
So there were more than the 3,000 recommended in the Report requiring meals on


wheels. I admit at once that not all those people required that service simply because of under-nourishment. Some required it because of loneliness and some because they were not fit to prepare their own meals. The Report also says:
It is, however, certainly probable that many of those recommended for whom no obvious signs of inability to prepare meals were shown (i.e. mobile and fit for all tasks) are indeed people whom the interviewer recommended purely on a nutritional basis.
Surely at this time in 1957, with a Prime Minister telling us "We have never had it so good," to have hundreds of people in the City of Edinburgh—that is only one of many large cities in the country—under-nourished is a startling indictment of the Government. It is something we ought seriously to consider. In these proposals a person living alone is offered 5s. a week more. What a magnificent sum! He cannot even buy a bag of coal with that. It would not buy half a bag of coal, not in London certainly. Even a married couple can scarcely afford an extra bag of coal out of this increase.
It is all right for the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to give us statistics; all of them may be important, but they are meaningless unless they are interpreted in terms of how people live. People live in terms of bags of coal, pints of milk and that sort of thing. How many pints of milk will 5s. buy? How much additional butter, additional bread or additional meat will 5s. buy? Housewives know about this much more than we do, but anyone with any knowledge at all knows that it is really ridiculous to give such a small amount when thousands of people in Edinburgh require meals on wheels, many of them for nutritional reasons.
I do not know whether the Minister will tell us, as I think the hon. Lady once did say, that this is because these people do not know how to spend their money. I hope we shall not hear that tonight. It is certainly a curious situation if when a person reaches the age of 60 or 65 he has to become an expert dietitian in order to know how to live out of the money he gets. There is something wrong with 'that. This Report also tells us that 3,000 or 4,000 people require changes in accommodation. It says:
…there emerges a compelling picture of poor housing…

and also enumerates all the difficulties under which these people are living. In Edinburgh the Corporation is building houses for the aged, but they are at much dearer rentals than many of these people have to pay at present. Therefore, if the aged and those in receipt of National Assistance are to take advantage, they require the full help to enable them to do so without limit. The Report follows a report previously prepared dealing with certain other factors concerning the aged in Edinburgh and amplifies my experience on going round my constituency that the condition under which many of these people are compelled to live is deplorable.
It is not good enough to say, "Well we have increased this amount by such and such per cent., which is slightly more than the cost-of-living figure." I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that that cost-of-living figure is misleading. Everyone knows that the weighting figures ought to vary for every category of person. The weighting figures for the aged are vastly different from those of other people. There ought to be a special cost-of-living index prepared for the aged. It should also be remembered that the productive capacity of this country has increased since the years about which the Government are so fond of talking when the Labour Government were in power. That capacity increased under a Labour Government very much from 1946 to 1951. It has not increased so much since then thanks to this Government, but it still has increased. Surely these people who paved the way for that increase are entitled to their share of the increased wealth of the country.
When we talk of doubling the standard of living, we ought to be talking in terms of the poorest as well as the well-to-do. In my view, the standard of the poorest people ought to be raised much faster than that of those who are better off. That is social justice. That is the way we ought to be looking at these things. If we cared to rearrange our structure of personal incomes rather differently, we could give these people a satisfactory standard of life without injuring anyone very much; in fact, I doubt whether it would cause any great hardship to any section of the country. Of course, the Government have no will to redistribute our national income more fairly and to give poorer people a better deal. Almost


every measure they undertake increases the gaps in society. They do less for the poor always.
Even in Measures such as we have recently considered, like the National Insurance Bill and these Regulations dealing with National Assistance, the Government follow the usual policy of the poorest getting the least. That is the philosophy of the party opposite. I cannot remember an occasion on which the Government have come forward with something which would benefit poor people more than it would benefit well-off people. Always it is the well-to-do who benefit most. I do not understand that philosophy at all.
We have a duty to these people. They have contributed their fair share to the greatness of this country. They have fought for this country in its difficulties, some of them to the injury of their health and the detriment of their careers. They have suffered unemployment in years gone by and suffered poverty. Some of them have brought up families of five or six children in conditions of immense difficulty and worked sixteen hours a day to rear those children to become good citizens capable of making a worthwhile contribution to society. At the end of the day we tell them that they must live on £2 5s. a week because they have not been able to save and because they have not worked where there was a superannuation scheme. We tell them that if there are two of them, they can live on £3 16s. a week. Anyone who has tried to live on that knows how difficult it is.
Incidentally, the Government ought to consider once again the proposal very frequently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that they should disregard for National Assistance purposes the additional increments earned as a result of working after 65. While I am glad that we are increasing these scales, they are not being increased sufficiently. My views on these increases are the same as my views on the pension increases; they are far too small and very, very late, because they ought to have been made long ago.

7.11 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: This has been a short but I think extremely interesting debate. We have been discussing not merely figures of increases and comparisons but the welfare and well-being of over two million people.

In the main, these are the old, the chronic sick, the unemployed and the children of these men and women.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), speaking first in the debate from this side of the House, dealt with a great many figures and asked the Minister to reply to a number of questions about them. I will not go over them, but I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to give the answers requested.
One interesting feature of the debate has been that only one back bencher from the Government side has participated. That was the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). I noted his words. He spoke about "by own earnings and own skill saving enough for old age". He spoke about a defeatist attitude. He went on to talk about those who waste their substance and their health, and said that if they did this, the State took care of them. I have here a booklet which many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received. It is a report from the City of Salford of a survey into the lives of the elderly people in Salford—a complete survey of every elderly man and woman in that city. In the report, we read these words:
One can only express the highest admiration of the indomitable spirit of the 'not so young' in this industrial dockland city, evident throughout the Survey, who having weathered the distress of two world wars; called up to bear the dire misery of poverty occasioned by the trade depression of the year preceding 1930 in which Salford suffered bitter experience to my knowledge, whilst I was in close touch with the people at that time relieving hardship and destitution; managed to afford every care to growing families, many of whom are now left alone in the eventide of life unable on their meagre incomes to afford themselves bare necessities to exist in any sort of comfort or purchase the common commodities such as bedding, coal, etc., which might at least give comfort to their bodies, the price of such severely minimising their purchasing power in this direction, even to preservation of a minimum standard.
That is about the old people in Salford, and the report was published in April of this year. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East is not in his place, because I imagine that the old people of Bolton, and indeed of any other city or rural area in this country, are no different from the old people of Salford in the way their lives have been spent.
Last week, when we were debating the National Insurance Bill, the Minister


spoke time and time again about the substantial increases which that Bill would give. In opening the debate today, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the appreciably higher value, even for those losing the tobacco coupon, of what was being given under these Regulations. What is being given is 5s., or, if the tobacco coupon is taken away, 2s. 8d. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a school teacher, and, in the context of how old people live today, if I had asked my pupils what figure of speech was either "substantial increase" in the context of the Bill or "appreciably higher value" in the context of these Regulations, I should have expected them to give me the figure of speech as hyperbole. It is nothing more than exaggeration to use words such as these to describe the increases which are to be given in the Regulations. If we put the small increases against the estimated saving of £8 million about which we were told last week, we realise more than ever how inadequate they are.
As I said, during the debate we have been talking about the old, the chronic sick and the long-term unemployed—in the main, the weakest people in our community, the people who need all the help that we as their representatives in the House can possibly give them. I suggest to the Minister that, twelve years after the war, the question which we should be posing to ourselves today is not, "Are these new rates better in real value than those of 1948?", but "Are they adequate?". That has been brought out in various ways from the speeches made from this side of the House.
I contend that these new rates are not adequate, particularly in the light of the researches which have been made in cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) quoted the survey which had been made in Edinburgh into the lives of old people. I have here the survey which has been made in Salford. A survey has been made in Rutherglen, in Scotland. Wherever a survey has been made in those years, we have undoubted evidence of the misery of the lives of our old people.
If the Minister replies tonight by telling us how much better are the provisions in these Regulations than those of 1948, then I tell him that that is no answer at all to the misery and the poverty of our old,

our chronic sick and our unemployed. Again I stress a point which has been stressed time and time again on this side of the House—that it is nonsense to quote the increase in these rates against the increase in the retail index.
I think of those old people who live near me. I think of the long-term unemployed, whose problems were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I will deal with them later. I think of the kind of lives which they are living. I can see the old and the chronic sick with their homes becoming poorer and poorer and they themselves becoming more miserable as each month passes. I am certain that if we examined this question from the adequacy of the amounts rather than from these useless comparisons—useless if we are talking to the old people—we might get from the National Assistance Board much better rates than we have in these Regulations.
There is a further point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary. She said that in a previous debate doubts were voiced from this side of the House about discretionary allowances, and the fear was expressed that the National Assistance Board had been tightening up on discretionary allowances. She quite rightly gave today figures to show that this was not the case. She said that the discretionary powers were used more freely in 1956 than ever before. So freely were they used that, in 1956, 45 per cent. of all those who were receiving help from the National Assistance Board had also given to them discretionary allowances.
I should like the Minister to tell us the number of discretionary grants that are given. There are weekly discretionary allowances and there are discretionary grants given for clothing, bed clothing and so on. I should like to know what has been happening about discretionary grants, and whether we have had the same increase in discretionary grants as we have had in discretionary allowances. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that when she said that there had been no tightening up of these allowances she gave us adequate proof that the basic payments are completely inadequate. Surely, if it comes to the stage that 45 per cent. of all people in receipt of National Assistance must be given extra by the National Assistance Board in the form of discretionary allowances, the basic rates are completely inadequate.
Again, I would say to the Minister that she should examine very carefully why so many discretionary allowances have to be paid. Like other hon. Members on this side of the House—and as, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary did I should like to pay my tribute to the area officers and the other officers of the National Assistance Board. In my own constituency I find that they are most helpful in all the work that they do for these people.
I turn to a point which has been raised on various occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. He has always been disturbed about the fate of the industrially disabled men. There are many of them in my constituency. These men are in the difficulty described by my hon. Friend because the Government decided to delete Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act. When that decision was taken, we on this side of the House made a strong plea that Section 62, which had been put in as a temporary measure when the Act was introduced, ought to be made permanent; but instead of making it permanent the Tory Government decided to delete it.
Those of us, like the hon. Member for Jarrow, who have a great many industrially disabled men in our constituencies find that these men are perfectly willing to work. They would love to find a job, not just for the money which it would give them, although that is important, but because it is much better from their own point of view to be in work. In my area, they cannot find work. I am sure that is the position in many other areas, so by the previous action of the Government they lost their unemployment benefit, and when they went to the National Assistance Board many of them found that they could not get a penny from the Board. No care at all is taken of these people under the provisions of these Regulations.
I would say to the Minister responsible that perhaps there was nothing that he could do for them in these Regulations, but since he has found how this has been working he ought now to have discussions with the other Ministers concerned to find if it is possible to reinstate the former Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) referred to two specific categories of people. I would say again, particularly of the blind, that they are the weakest in our community. They have always had a rate higher than the ordinary rate with which we are dealing in these Regulations. Under these Regulations, although an increase has been made in the basic rates, no increase has been made for the blind. If the Minister is basing the present increases on the rise in the cost of living—and the Parliamentary Secretary in her speech did try to make that out—then there has been a rise in the cost of living for the blind, and it seems to me they ought to have had an increase under these Regulations. Concerning tubercular patients, the differential has been lessened under the Regulations, and I should like the Minister to tell us why.
My right hon. Friend asked about the question of rents. We should like the Minister to give a specific assurance tonight that, no matter what the increases in rents may be under the Rent Act, every old person who is on National Assistance, or those who are to go on National Assistance because of the increases under the Rent Act, will have the full rent given to them. This is important, because I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that, whatever the rent may be, it will be paid.
Finally, I would say, on a matter which has been mentioned by one or two of my hon. Friends, that when we look at the number of people on National Insurance who are in receipt of National Assistance and the number of people on unemployment benefit who are in receipt of National Assistance, we can come to only one conclusion, that the rates for National Insurance sickness benefit and the rates for unemployment benefit are too low. It seems to me that there must be much more examination of these matters than there was by the Government when they produced the Bill which we discussed last week. When we consider the number of old-age pensioners who are receiving the full old-age pension, the contributory pension, and at the number of those old people on National Assistance we must come to the conclusion that the pensions are too small.
I do not think that we can go on any longer looking at this in just a piecemeal way. It must be examined radically, and


the Labour Party has been doing that. We have given to the British public for examination and discussion a policy statement on pensions and superannuation. We are now engaged in examining the consequences on National Insurance and unemployment benefit. I wish that the Government had done the same thing—and what a much better position they were in than were those of us on the working party on that national superannuation scheme.
By this time the Government ought to have been able to have brought forward proposals that would have made whatever these people were getting in benefit adequate to meet today's needs. I press the Minister to take account of all the points of view put forward by the Opposition, and to realise that our old people, even with the miserable increases that are given under these Regulations, will still be living a life of poverty and hardship.
I want again to quote from the report on the Salford survey. It says:
To those in doubt of the plight of elderly in 1957, following this total survey, I ask 'take a walk with me on the daily round' and see in cold reality homes where replacements or repair of footwear is 'luxury'; a hot mid-day meal for six days a week almost a miracle; warm winter clothes (so necessary in this part of Lancashire to old people) a mere fancy; see cinders sifted minutely from old fireplaces until they are reduced to fine ash…the ability to buy sufficient coal alone I feel might be the relevant inducement for them to remain in their own homes with at least the comfort of warmth.
As I said in the beginning, I am convinced from my own contacts, particularly with the old people and the chronic sick, that that is the kind of life they are living, and no figures proving that this Government have been better than a previous one will be any comfort to them. If the Minister cannot do anything about these Regulations, I hope that new ones will soon come from the National Assistance Board, so showing that the Board and the Government have really taken account of these serious surveys among our old people and are ready to make life more tolerable for them and to allow them to live in dignity in their advanced years.

7.34 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): If one compares the course of this debate with that on similar Regulations on

the last two or three occasions on which the assistance scales have been increased, one is very much struck by how much calmer and more objective has been today's debate. I am sure that that is a good thing because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) very rightly reminded us, this is a matter of major importance to the people directly concerned and, indeed, to the community as a whole. It is one which I am sure the House is right to take, as it has today, calmly and objectively, and not one that is helped if we get too passionate or too excited about it—

Mr. Willis: It is not a question of passion. It is a question of poverty.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is always passionate and I would except him from what I have said, but I think that the House as a whole is at its best in discussing a great and important issue if it does so calmly, and I would say to the hon. Gentleman that calmness is by no manner of means inconsistent with sincerity.
Another interesting feature of this debate, which I thought very fair and proper, has been the tributes paid again and again to the officers of the Assistance Board for the humane and sensible way in which they administer this great system. I would, if I might, confirm those tributes. I believe that the way in which the system is administered is the best possible answer to the objection raised from time to time—and I think mentioned at any rate once today—that some people feel an unwillingness, even though they are qualified, to obtain help from the Board.
I am perfectly certain that when people who have had that feeling have been able to overcome it they have certainly found that the Board's officers have treated them with humanity, discretion and fairness, and have learned, therefore, that their doubts and hesitations—however worthy and admirable—were completely unfounded.
I will endeavour, first of all, to deal separately with a number of important issues that have been raised and then, if I may, devote the closing part of my remarks to an argument on the adequacy and propriety of our proposals.
As it is somewhat extraneous to the main issue, let me first deal with the point put by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) a few moments ago. I think that her reference to Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act was really to Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, because, from the subject matter of her speech, I gathered that it was extended unemployment benefit that she had in mind.
As the House knows, that Section was put originally in the 1946 Act—by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course for a limited period of five years. It allowed extended unemployment benefit over that period because it was then contemplated that there might be serious post-war unemployment. But I would stress that, from the beginning, it was intended to be a temporary provision to deal with a feared temporary situation which, in the mercy of Providence, did not arise here after the 1939–45 war.
What was done in 1953 was to allow that Section to lapse, but, as the House remembers, to make a somewhat more generous provision for added days. In fact, the maximum period for which unemployment benefit can now be paid is up to 19 months, which is a longer period than under the old Act. I do not think that the hon. Lady's proposal to reverse the decision of 1953—or the intention of the 1946 Act—is a sound one, or one that is justified by the country's employment situation—

Miss Herbison: The Minister is basing his case on the fact that we have full employment. What worries many of us, and what worried the Labour Opposition when the Government decided to allow Section 62 to lapse, was that in some areas there is still serious unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, These are the people who have suffered greatly, and I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must well remember when this Section was allowed to lapse the case that was put up from this side by those who had been responsible for the Act in the first instance.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That was a case that the House of Commons did not accept. The hon. Lady cannot avoid the fact that her own right hon. Friends brought forward this provision in the contemptation

of large-scale unemployment, and in today's employment situation it is not sound or reasonable to argue that a provision specifically designed not for pockets of unemployment in certain areas but for large-scale unemployment is appropriate or necessary—

Mr. B. Taylor: I am sure that were he here my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) would say that whilst Section 62 of the National Insurance Act was put in for a period of only five years, there was also provision that the whole Act should be subject to quinquennial review. I am quite certain that it was never in his mind that extended unemployment benefit should he abolished, as it was by the Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman, of course, was with his right hon. Friend at the time of the Act. I can only go by the statements published at the time of the intentions of the then Government. But it is perfectly clear that the provision was designed to deal with a situation which did not arise and which has not arisen. Therefore, the point is not a relevant contribution to thought on this matter.

Mr. Fernyhough: rose—

Mr. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give way to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr B. Taylor).

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman, who is now Lord Ingleby, was giving his observation about the lapsing of this provision and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pleaded for its retention.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of that. Indeed, I referred the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North to the debates in this House and to the fact that the House did not accept those arguments. My point, as the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, relates to the original intention in making this, as has been undisputed, a temporary provision compared with the permanent provision in the 1946 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East raised very properly the question of how many people would be taken off National Assistance


by the combined effect of the changes embodied in these Regulations and the improvement in National Insurance benefits which the House approved last week. It is difficult to give a precise figure because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the needs of people on National Assistance vary and fluctuate with varying circumstances.
I suppose the best rough answer I can give him is to say that it would appear at first sight that those who will come off assistance altogether will be single people at present receiving assistance at 5s. or less, which is the difference between the increases in the National Insurance benefit and the National Assistance scales, and also married couples in receipt of 6s. assistance or less. The number in those two groups at the end of 1956 when the last calculation was made was about 92,000. Therefore, although I will not make any precise forecast, because, as I have said, these are figures that reflect all sorts of different circumstances, the number to come off National Assistance would not be greater than that. The main body, therefore, of the saving, on National Assistance resulting from increased expenditure on National Insurance benefits will be undoubtedly in connection with those who remain on assistance, although they will have less need for assistance owing to the improvement in National Insurance benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the numbers on assistance in any event were too large. He will appreciate, of course, that the effect of these Regulations will be to make the numbers larger than they otherwise would be. It is sometimes said that the size of the number on assistance is of itself a severe criticism of social service administration generally. If assistance scales are raised, as they are being raised, and therefore more people brought within their possible scope, the effect is to offset in some measure the diminution in numbers on assistance which would have resulted if we had raised National Insurance benefits and left assistance as it was. It is the purpose of these proposals to improve the National Assistance scales, and the result will be that the numbers of those on assistance will be higher than they otherwise would be.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the reference by the Assistance Board in the White Paper, which was laid at the same time as the Regulations, to the fact that the withdrawal of the tobacco token had been "taken into account." Those are the words of the White Paper. This factor was taken into account by the Board, as the terms of the White Paper clearly show, in deciding what improvement in the scales of assistance to propose. It would have been a matter for criticism of the Board if in making up its mind, as it is its duty to do under the Act, it had ignored the fact that some of the recipients of the benefits would be affected by the withdrawal of the tobacco tokens. The hon. Lady has given an estimate of the numbers who will be affected. The answer to the question of how this point was taken into account is in deciding upon the scales to recommend to the Government.
Then the right hon. Gentleman and one or two of his hon. Friends asked about the treatment of rent by the Board in the context of the Rent Act. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that in the debate in the House on 1st August, I made a statement of the Board's intentions. Perhaps it would be convenient if I read that statement as it stands:
I am able to tell the House precisely the way the Board intends to handle this question of rents. I am informed that, except in cases where accommodation is shared by a son or daughter or other person in employment, and in a position to meet some of the increased rent, it is the intention of the Board to provide in an assistance grant for the full amount of any permitted increase in a conntrolled rent; and for any reasonable increase where the rent is not controlled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1613.]
That certainly does not mean that it would be the Board's duty to subsidise indefinitely payments of rents illegally or unlawfully claimed.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: Could the Minister explain the word "reasonable". It is not clear to me what a "reasonable" amount is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: "Reasonable", of course, is a word with which the House is familiar in Statutes, and hon. and learned Members have often favoured us with a great deal of prolonged wisdom on its precise interpretation. I am not, in the technical sense, learned. I leave to the House the untechnical aspects of the matter, with due modesty.
I was almost about to say that the position is "reasonably" clear. Quite clearly, it would not be the Board's duty to pay a rent unlawfully demanded and which it would be within the power of the tenant to resist. I think that was an example which the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) put to me in the shape of a Question the other day. I am sorry if I misunderstood his question. The tenant must be expected to behave reasonably and not, because the Board is supporting him, to acquiesce in illegalities by his landlord or in unreasonable and extortionate demands. The tenant must behave as if he were himself responsible for the rent. That is probably the best guide.

Miss Herbison: The Minister has spoken about reasonable increases and said that the Board will not pay any increase that is illegal. The point that is worrying Members on this side of the House and which we should like to have made clear is that under the Rent Act the landlord of a house that is decontrolled may choose any rent he likes to ask. If the landlord asks what the National Assistance Board considers is not a reasonable rent, then what happens to the old woman, old man or old couple?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think there is much difficulty about that if one applies the test I gave in reply to the hon. Lady's hon. Friend. They would be expected to behave as if it were their own money they were paying in rent. A tenant who is asked a rent far higher than that for which he can get comparable accommodation will not indefinitely remain and pay it. Nor would it be right to expect that the Board should finance him if he so desires to remain. But there would certainly be no immediate action by the Board any more than there would be immediate action by the individual. The Board would behave just as a reasonable individual would in dealing with his own personal affairs. [interruption.] I do not follow the hon. Lady when she suggests that it is shocking. I suggest that to take any other line in this matter would be shocking, and I think that when the hon. Lady studies in HANSARD what I have said—I am sure she desires to be fair minded—she will come to the same conclusion.

Miss Herbison: When I say "shocking," I do not mean it from the point of view of the National Assistance Board or of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance; but it appears from the answer that we got from the Minister tonight that as a result of the provisions in the Rent Act there will be old men and women who, although they may think the rent is not reasonable and the National Assistance Board may think it is not reasonable, will have to leave their homes in which they have lived most of their lives and spend their last few years somewhere else. That is what I think is shocking.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady is not entitled to jump to any conclusion at all. I answered a question on a hypothetical basis put by her and her hon. Friends. I was not saying—nor is it, indeed, my duty to say—that in any particular case an unreasonable demand has been or will be made. I answered in order to deal with any possibility of anxiety on the part of any tenant concerned as to what was the Board's attitude.
It is quite wrong for the hon. Lady in those circumstances to try to make a political point in a wholly different context merely because she does not happen to like the Rent Act. The hon. Lady will find when she studies my words in HANSARD tomorrow that I have made quite clear what is the attitude of the Board, and I have not urged or accepted or acquiesced in any view which she on political grounds may wish to take on the operation of the wise and beneficent Measure which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government introduced.

Mr. Marquand: If in those circumstances a tenant thinks that the refusal of the Board to meet the rent which the Board deems unreasonable is wrong and mistaken, will he have the right of appeal to the tribunal which deals with Assistance appeals? Secondly, in these circumstances, if the Board finds that one of the people to whom it is paying an allowance is liable to be evicted, will the Board draw the attention of the local authority to the circumstances and ask the help of the local authority in finding different accommodation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Board's general attitude is one of helpfulness to


tenants, but it is not expert in the law of landlord and tenant. It has many other obligations and duties imposed upon it. Therefore, I can only say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that each case will be looked upon on its merits, from the point of view of the desire of the Board to be helpful.
As regards the question of appeal to the tribunal, that is a matter of law to which I would prefer not to give an answer off the cuff. It would depend upon the provisions of the Act, but I can certainly ascertain what legal opinion is on that matter and convey it to the right hon. Gentleman in due course if he is interested in it.
The hon. Members for Mansfield and for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred to the question of National Assistance disregards—

Mr. William Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that last point—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have left it.

Mr. Ross: Even if the right hon. Gentleman has left it, is he not prepared to go back to it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have given way to a great many interventions on that point and I must now deal with some of the other matters raised.
The hon. Members for Mansfield and Bedwellty referred to the question of National Assistance disregards. That does not strictly arise on these Regulations, which are designed to increase the scales of benefit. To alter the disregards would in any event involve not regulations but legislation. Therefore, I would only say this at this stage. The matter is not anything like as clear and obvious as the hon. Gentlemen seemed to think when they pressed their suggestion on the change in money values since 1948 and said that figures which had been right then could not for that reason be right now.
The difficulty about the disregards is this. Ex hypothesi if we increase them we are providing more money for those less in need than others because they have some other income to be disregarded. That is why it has been the policy since 1948 of successive Governments to put into the assistance scales

themselves, thus helping those most in need, such money as they think proper to provide, rather than to amend the disregards which, in the nature of things, give money to those at any rate less in need than others. That is all that I can usefully say at this stage on that admittedly very interesting and not uncomplicated matter.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) raised the question of the provision of additional payments for blind persons and persons who give up their work to undergo treatment for tuberculosis. We are preserving the full differential of 20s., but the hon. Gentleman is quite right—we are not increasing that differential. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North was quite wrong when she said that no increase was being given for the blind or the tuberculous. I think those are the words the hon. Lady used.

Miss Herbison: On the question of tubercular patients, I said that although there was an increase, the differentiation was not so big as it had been previously.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Lady studies HANSARD she will see that she said in a moment of natural eloquence that there was no increase for the blind.

Miss Herbison: I referred to the tubercular.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They are being treated in exactly the same way. They are both getting precisely the same increase as all other recipients of National Assistance. The hon. Member for Tottenham is quite right. The differential itself is not being increased. I thought the hon. Member for Tottenham fell into error when he said that it always had been on previous occasions.

Sir F. Messer: Not always. I quoted the dates.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In fact, it was not so increased in 1950 or 1951. It was in 1952 and 1956. We did consider it in this context, but of course, as the hon. Gentleman will recall from his own experience, this is not an additional payment which has so precise a relationship to changing prices as have the main scales themselves, which is no doubt the reason why on two previous occasions the differential was not increased.
In fact, the margin is not the result of any precise estimate of the special expenses attached either to blindness or to tuberculosis. If in a particular case such expenses resulting from either amount to more than the 20s. differential a week, the Board's discretionary powers are available and can be used to allow more. By way of example, since the hon. Gentleman spoke I have obtained the figures of the tuberculosis cases where an extra payment is being made. Out of the 28,000 such cases in the last year for which we have figures, 5,700 were receiving an additional supplement.
As I say, I fully understand the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has put, and I would say to the House and to those interested outside that the decision on this occasion not to increase the differential but to move only to the extent to which the scales generally have been raised certainly does not indicate any desire not to leave it quite open for future occasions whether the differential should be further increased or not. It relates only to these Regulations. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I believe it has caused some concern on those grounds among people interested in this matter outside.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty raised the question of a separate pensioners' index, as did one or two other hon. Members. I will say in the first place that indices of this sort are not my Departmental responsibility. They are published by the Minister of Labour and National Service. We have studied the document, which the right hon. Gentleman, I think, also had in front of him, on the recent inquiry into pensioners' expenditure. It is perfectly clear that preparation of such an index would not necessarily be either easy or satisfactory. One clear result of that report is to bring out very clearly from the specimen of cases how often retirement pensioners are in households with other income, perhaps with other members of the household with income, and that of itself makes the preparation of a separate index of perhaps less value than may appear at first sight. In any event, we have been giving some study to this document, but I am frankly doubtful, I must say to the House, on consideration whether the production of a separate index of this sort would really be valuable or helpful.

Dr. King: Were not we informed over twelve months ago that the National Assistance Board itself had such an index and was using it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the hon. Member was informed twelve months ago. I can only say that it is the Assistance Board's duty under the Act to get as much information as will help it to do that duty.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I have been looking through the scales. I do not see any reference at all to an index. I was wondering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you would allow me, if I decide to follow the right hon. Gentleman, who would not allow me to intervene to ask a question a few moments ago, to carry on this discussion about something which I do not see in the Regulations at all. Will that be in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It will not be if it is not in the Regulations, but a passing reference to it would be tolerated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to you for your kindness, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because, as the House is aware. I did not myself introduce this subject. I think at least three hon. Members opposite raised it. It is a point of general interest, and I think I should have been guilty of some discourtesy if I had not attempted to reply.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister has just said it is a point of general interest. Does that mean you will allow speeches to be carried on in relation to a point of general interest?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that it was in order because it was a point of general interest. He said merely that it was a point of general interest.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should have been guilty of gross impertinence to the Chair if I had ventured to express an opinion as to whether something was in order or not. I was merely paying a tribute, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to your habitual kindness and forbearance. I think I have dealt with the point now and I will pass from grounds the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was good enough to warn me off.
I propose now, as I promised I would, to say a word or two about the scales. As the House knows, under the Act of 1948 the initial responsibility is based. I think very properly and appropriately, on the Assistance Board. On its past record in this matter, in proposing the higher increases which it has proposed and which successive Governments have adopted, I think it has fully merited the confidence of the House and of the country.
It has, as I said in reply to an interjection, many sources of knowledge of this subject, certainly not confined to statistical material. Indeed, I felt a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said a few moments ago, when he said that real knowledge of how people live is at least as valuable as statistical material. That is available to the Board, because its officers are in direct contact with the people concerned, not only in the Board's offices, but through the continual visiting in their homes of persons on assistance or applying for it. Thus the Board has very direct knowledge of the conditions of the people requiring assistance, and I think that that is a very valuable factor in the matter. This knowledge is not confined to the Board's officers. The Board's members themselves are constant in their visiting in various parts of the country, and I think the House ought to be grateful to them for the immense amount of work they put in in that respect.
Then we come to these proposals, the sixth increase, as I said, since 1948. The Board, in putting forward these proposals at this time, is following the policy it has operated since 1952 of proposing increases before the value has fallen to the 1948 value. On earlier occasions, as the House will recall, the value fell below the initial value before the proposal for an increase was made.
The present position—before the increases come into effect at the end of January, if Parliament authorises them—under the scales at the moment is that in money terms they are 67 per cent. above 1948, compared with a movement of the Interim Index of Retail Prices over the same period of 52 per cent.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the exact date when these calculations

were made, because he will appreciate that since the announcement was made of the new scales the cost of living index has increased by one point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These calculations are just about as up to date as they could be in time to be delivered to this House today. Of course they are up to date.

Mr. Ross: But when were they made?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to say the day of the week. They take into account all the latest information, and they do provide, as I say, for a 67 per cent. increase in cash value above 1948, compared with a 52 per cent. movement in the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
I was warned by one or two hon. Members that I must not on any account consider the 1948 scales as adequate, and, indeed, one or two hon. Members indicated great indignation. I can only say this, that when they were put forward they were recommended as being adequate.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), then the Parliamentary Secretary at my present Department, said, in introducing them:
The new scale is, therefore, intended to provide a reasonable standard of living for those requiring long-term assistance.
A little later he said:
The scales of requirements allow an appreciable margin over bare subsistence, since it is desired that no one should be denied a reasonable standard of living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1948; Vol. 452, C. 559 and 564.]
I think it is fair to take that, not as an ultimate solution, but as a base from which subsequent calculations can develop, and on that it is clear, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that they do provide a substantial improvement over the 1948 level.
The new rate for a single householder of 45s., even allowing for his being a smoker and losing the 2s. 4d. value of the token, will be 77.8 per cent. above the 1948 level, against an increase in the index of retail prices of 52 per cent. to which I have just referred. Similarly, even in what one may call the extreme case, that of a married couple who are both smokers—I think one hon. Member opposite, quite rightly, put that as the extreme case—they will still be 78.3 per cent. in cash terms up on 1948. If only


one smokes, they will be 842 per cent. up on 1948. The non-smoking retirement pensioner, and, of course, the other beneficiaries of National Assistance who, not being retirement pensioners or non-contributory old-age pensioners, never were entitled to the tobacco tokens, will be, of course, proportionately better off—87·5 per cent. in cash terms above 1948 single: 90 per cent. married.
Therefore, I can say, as my hon. Friend said, though she was criticised for saying so, that these do amount to a real improvement.
So they do in respect of children. I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East on this aspect of the matter. The House will see that the proportionate increases for children may, if anything, be a little higher than those for adults, and there is, of course, the additional and not unimportant factor in the case of children of parents who are on assistance, that, in general, the local education authorities provide school meals free.
But the improved scales are not, of course, the whole story. Reference has been made already in this debate, and properly, to the discretionary additions which, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told the House, cover in the latest year for which we have figures some 45 per cent. of the recipients.
The hon. Lady sought to suggest that that was itself a criticism of the basic scales. I really do not follow her in that. These discretionary additions are designed to enable, and were designed from the beginning to enable, the Board to deal with the enormous variety of personal circumstances which are apparent among recipients of assistance, as they are among other members of our society. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is quite right in bringing out the variety of personal circumstances which arise and the danger of relying simply upon statistical scales. It is in this way that many of the difficulties to which reference has been made in the debate can be met.
I was asked about lump sum grants. In 1956, there were 138,000 of these, very often, as has been suggested, for clothing. The use both of the discretionary additions and the lump sum payments indicates that we are not simply concerned with immutable scales which

may not in all circumstances meet the needs of individuals and families but that we are concerned with scales which, in general, provide the basis on which these things can be dealt with in the sensible and flexible way in which the Board's officers deal with them.
A comparison was made with National Insurance rates. I do not think that that is a very useful comparison because one is not comparing like with like. National Insurance scales are complete in themselves. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, National Assistance scales are exclusive of rent and can, and do, have rents added to them in the case of householders. Therefore, when one contrasts the level of National Insurance with National Assistance it is not a very useful comparison, unless one adds a second figure, varying in individual cases, for rent. Nor is a comparison very useful when one remembers the discretionary additions to assistance to which I have referred. Therefore, we cannot form a useful view of the right level of assistance scales simply by comparing them with National Insurance or by arguing that we should raise assistance scales, exclusive of rent, to the National Insurance level which does not have a rent addition.
As I have said, these are the sixth in the line of proposals which the Board has put forward for improvement in these scales. It is very much a matter of judgment, in the first place for the Board and in the second place for the House, whether we have arrived at precisely the right figure. The House knows the Board well enough to know that it would not have put forward proposals without considerable thought and study. In accepting the proposals, Her Majesty's Government have given careful attention to what it is right in the circumstances to do. These scales provide an improvement where we all agree it is most needed. I very much hope that the House will give these draft Regulations its approval, so that we can operate these scales at the end of January at the same time as the National Insurance lone-term benefits come into effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[26th November]

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY)

Resolution reported,
That provision be made, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight,

(a) for authorising the Treasury from time to time to issue out of the Consolidated fund, for application as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, such sums (not exceeding in the whole the sum of seventy-five million pounds) as the Treasury may determine to be appropriate on account of expenses properly chargeable to capital account;
(b) for authorising the Treasury, for the purpose of providing money for sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid, or for repaying to that Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, to borrow—

(i) by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding twenty years (such annuities to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund), or
(ii) in any other manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939 (any securities created and issued for that purpose to be deemed for all purposes to be created and issued under the said Act of 1939), and for requiring sums so borrowed to be paid into the Exchequer;

(c) for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office of sums issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Resolution (so far as those sums exceed the amount borrowed in the manner mentioned in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this Resolution), together with interest thereon;
(d) for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer under paragraph (c) of this Resolution and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt or, so far as they represent interest, towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the National Debt as represents interest;
(e) for restricting the operation of subsection (1) of section one of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1955, and repealing section two of that Act, and far the repayment into the Exchequer of certain sums issued under the said subsection (1).

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Marples, and Mr. Powell.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY)

Bill to provide money for expenses of the Post Office properly chargeable to capital account; and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS)

Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer:

Mr. Albu, Sir John Barlow, Mr. Blyton, Mr. Ernest Davies, Sir Ian Horobin, Mr. David Jones, Sir Keith Joseph, Colonel Lancaster, Sir Toby Low, Mr. Palmer, Sir Alexander Spearman. Mr. Wade, and Dame Irene Ward:

Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts) in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eight o'clock.